https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.57759b6bf855

Dear Miss Manners €¢ When my husband and I go out to dinner with another couple, he thinks its petty either to request separate checks or to calculate afterward how much each couple owes. He believes the check should always be divided equally, and this is what we do with most friends..

The difference in price between what each couple orders is usually only $10 to $20, meaning that the couple who spent less only contributes $5 to $10 for the other couples food.

However, we are friends with one other couple who has always declined to pay for more than they ordered (for the record, my husband and I have always been the ones to order more), and my husband has always grumbled afterward to me about €œTonys€� stinginess.

Last night we had dinner with them, and my husband and I ordered $40 more worth of food and drinks than Tony and his wife. When Tony calculated how much they owed, my husband got angry and confronted him, saying that these calculations had always annoyed him, arguing that paying a little extra is the cost of going out with friends.

I dont think friends are obligated to subsidize my husbands and my appetizers, wine, dessert, etc., especially not when its $40 worth. Also, I think its okay to request separate checks.



Gentle Reader €¢ This problem is likely to solve itself when you find that you are the only person left willing to go out for dinner with your husband.

Funny how his idea of polite sharing always seems to work in his favor. Miss Manners notices that he is not paying that €œlittle extra cost of going out with friends"; he is charging them for the privilege of going out with him.

It is true that it would be petty to grudge the cost of offering hospitality. But this is not the case in a restaurant, where it is agreed that each of you is buying a meal. There is nothing unfriendly about requesting separate checks, which would be a good idea if you want to have any friends left.

(end)

Some people! I wouldn't expect anyone other than a crass teenager to get mad.


Lenona.

On 1/9/2018 11:28 AM, wrote:
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.57759b6bf855
>
> Dear Miss Manners €¢ When my husband and I go out to dinner with another couple, he thinks its petty either to request separate checks or to calculate afterward how much each couple owes. He believes the check should always be divided equally, and this is what we do with most friends.
>
> The difference in price between what each couple orders is usually only $10 to $20, meaning that the couple who spent less only contributes $5 to $10 for the other couples food.
>
> However, we are friends with one other couple who has always declined to pay for more than they ordered (for the record, my husband and I have always been the ones to order more), and my husband has always grumbled afterward to me about €œTonys€� stinginess.
>
> Last night we had dinner with them, and my husband and I ordered $40 more worth of food and drinks than Tony and his wife. When Tony calculated how much they owed, my husband got angry and confronted him, saying that these calculations had always annoyed him, arguing that paying a little extra is the cost of going out with friends.
>
> I dont think friends are obligated to subsidize my husbands and my appetizers, wine, dessert, etc., especially not when its $40 worth. Also, I think its okay to request separate checks.
>
>
>
> Gentle Reader €¢ This problem is likely to solve itself when you find that you are the only person left willing to go out for dinner with your husband.
>
> Funny how his idea of polite sharing always seems to work in his favor. Miss Manners notices that he is not paying that €œlittle extra cost of going out with friends"; he is charging them for the privilege of going out with him.
>
> It is true that it would be petty to grudge the cost of offering hospitality. But this is not the case in a restaurant, where it is agreed that each of you is buying a meal. There is nothing unfriendly about requesting separate checks, which would be a good idea if you want to have any friends left.
>
> (end)
>
> Some people! I wouldn't expect anyone other than a crass teenager to get mad.
>
>
> Lenona.
>


Huh?

For a regularly repeating $40 split meal subsidy?

Wow.

On 1/9/2018 10:30 AM, Casa estilo antiguo wrote:
> On 1/9/2018 11:28 AM, wrote:
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.57759b6bf855
>>
>> Dear Miss Manners €¢ When my husband and I go out to dinner with another couple, he thinks its petty either to request separate checks or to calculate afterward how much each couple owes. He believes the check should always be divided equally, and this is what we do with most friends.
>>
>> The difference in price between what each couple orders is usually only $10 to $20, meaning that the couple who spent less only contributes $5 to $10 for the other couples food.
>>
>> However, we are friends with one other couple who has always declined to pay for more than they ordered (for the record, my husband and I have always been the ones to order more), and my husband has always grumbled afterward to me about €œTonys€� stinginess.
>>
>> Last night we had dinner with them, and my husband and I ordered $40 more worth of food and drinks than Tony and his wife. When Tony calculated how much they owed, my husband got angry and confronted him, saying that these calculations had always annoyed him, arguing that paying a little extra is the cost of going out with friends.
>>
>> I dont think friends are obligated to subsidize my husbands and my appetizers, wine, dessert, etc., especially not when its $40 worth. Also, I think its okay to request separate checks.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gentle Reader €¢ This problem is likely to solve itself when you find that you are the only person left willing to go out for dinner with your husband.
>>
>> Funny how his idea of polite sharing always seems to work in his favor. Miss Manners notices that he is not paying that €œlittle extra cost of going out with friends"; he is charging them for the privilege of going out with him.
>>
>> It is true that it would be petty to grudge the cost of offering hospitality. But this is not the case in a restaurant, where it is agreed that each of you is buying a meal. There is nothing unfriendly about requesting separate checks, which would be a good idea if you want to have any friends left.
>>
>> (end)
>>
>> Some people! I wouldn't expect anyone other than a crass teenager to get mad.
>>
>>
>> Lenona.
>>
>
>
> Huh?
>
> For a regularly repeating $40 split meal subsidy?
>
> Wow.
>

must be a progressive.

On 2018-01-09 11:44 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
> On 1/9/2018 10:30 AM, Casa estilo antiguo wrote:
>> On 1/9/2018 11:28 AM, wrote:
>>>
>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.57759b6bf855
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Miss Manners €¢ When my husband and I go out to dinner with
>>> another couple, he thinks its petty either to request separate
>>> checks or to calculate afterward how much each couple owes. He
>>> believes the check should always be divided equally, and this is what
>>> we do with most friends.
>>>
>>> The difference in price between what each couple orders is usually
>>> only $10 to $20, meaning that the couple who spent less only
>>> contributes $5 to $10 for the other couples food.
>>>
>>> However, we are friends with one other couple who has always declined
>>> to pay for more than they ordered (for the record, my husband and I
>>> have always been the ones to order more), and my husband has always
>>> grumbled afterward to me about €œTonys€� stinginess.
>>>
>>> Last night we had dinner with them, and my husband and I ordered $40
>>> more worth of food and drinks than Tony and his wife. When Tony
>>> calculated how much they owed, my husband got angry and confronted
>>> him, saying that these calculations had always annoyed him, arguing
>>> that paying a little extra is the cost of going out with friends.
>>>
>>> I dont think friends are obligated to subsidize my husbands and my
>>> appetizers, wine, dessert, etc., especially not when its $40 worth.
>>> Also, I think its okay to request separate checks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gentle Reader €¢ This problem is likely to solve itself when you find
>>> that you are the only person left willing to go out for dinner with
>>> your husband.
>>>
>>> Funny how his idea of polite sharing always seems to work in his
>>> favor. Miss Manners notices that he is not paying that €œlittle extra
>>> cost of going out with friends"; he is charging them for the
>>> privilege of going out with him.
>>>
>>> It is true that it would be petty to grudge the cost of offering
>>> hospitality. But this is not the case in a restaurant, where it is
>>> agreed that each of you is buying a meal. There is nothing unfriendly
>>> about requesting separate checks, which would be a good idea if you
>>> want to have any friends left.
>>>
>>> (end)
>>>
>>> Some people! I wouldn't expect anyone other than a crass teenager to
>>> get mad.
>>>
>>>
>>> Lenona.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> For a regularly repeating $40 split meal subsidy?
>>
>> Wow.
>>
>
> must be a progressive.
On the contrary! In my experience, liberals and left-wingers will
nickel and dime a restaurant bill to death! It's always the well-heeled,
conservative voters who "generously" split the bill evenly.

On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 11:48:38 -0700, graham > wrote:

>On 2018-01-09 11:44 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>> On 1/9/2018 10:30 AM, Casa estilo antiguo wrote:

<snip hard to read Google Groups text>

>>> Huh?
>>>
>>> For a regularly repeating $40 split meal subsidy?
>>>
>>> Wow.
>>>
>>
>> must be a progressive.
>On the contrary! In my experience, liberals and left-wingers will
>nickel and dime a restaurant bill to death! It's always the well-heeled,
>conservative voters who "generously" split the bill evenly.

Yoho, smug, right-wing blanket statements!

On 1/9/2018 11:44 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
> On 1/9/2018 10:30 AM, Casa estilo antiguo wrote:
>> On 1/9/2018 11:28 AM, wrote:
>>>
>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.57759b6bf855
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Miss Manners €¢ When my husband and I go out to dinner with
>>> another couple, he thinks its petty either to request separate
>>> checks or to calculate afterward how much each couple owes. He
>>> believes the check should always be divided equally, and this is what
>>> we do with most friends.
>>>
>>> The difference in price between what each couple orders is usually
>>> only $10 to $20, meaning that the couple who spent less only
>>> contributes $5 to $10 for the other couples food.
>>>
>>> However, we are friends with one other couple who has always declined
>>> to pay for more than they ordered (for the record, my husband and I
>>> have always been the ones to order more), and my husband has always
>>> grumbled afterward to me about €œTonys€� stinginess.
>>>
>>> Last night we had dinner with them, and my husband and I ordered $40
>>> more worth of food and drinks than Tony and his wife. When Tony
>>> calculated how much they owed, my husband got angry and confronted
>>> him, saying that these calculations had always annoyed him, arguing
>>> that paying a little extra is the cost of going out with friends.
>>>
>>> I dont think friends are obligated to subsidize my husbands and my
>>> appetizers, wine, dessert, etc., especially not when its $40 worth.
>>> Also, I think its okay to request separate checks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gentle Reader €¢ This problem is likely to solve itself when you find
>>> that you are the only person left willing to go out for dinner with
>>> your husband.
>>>
>>> Funny how his idea of polite sharing always seems to work in his
>>> favor. Miss Manners notices that he is not paying that €œlittle extra
>>> cost of going out with friends"; he is charging them for the
>>> privilege of going out with him.
>>>
>>> It is true that it would be petty to grudge the cost of offering
>>> hospitality. But this is not the case in a restaurant, where it is
>>> agreed that each of you is buying a meal. There is nothing unfriendly
>>> about requesting separate checks, which would be a good idea if you
>>> want to have any friends left.
>>>
>>> (end)
>>>
>>> Some people! I wouldn't expect anyone other than a crass teenager to
>>> get mad.
>>>
>>>
>>> Lenona.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> For a regularly repeating $40 split meal subsidy?
>>
>> Wow.
>>
>
> must be a progressive.

<VBG>

On 1/9/2018 11:48 AM, graham wrote:
> On 2018-01-09 11:44 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>> On 1/9/2018 10:30 AM, Casa estilo antiguo wrote:
>>> On 1/9/2018 11:28 AM, wrote:
>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.57759b6bf855
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Miss Manners €¢ When my husband and I go out to dinner with
>>>> another couple, he thinks its petty either to request separate
>>>> checks or to calculate afterward how much each couple owes. He
>>>> believes the check should always be divided equally, and this is
>>>> what we do with most friends.
>>>>
>>>> The difference in price between what each couple orders is usually
>>>> only $10 to $20, meaning that the couple who spent less only
>>>> contributes $5 to $10 for the other couples food.
>>>>
>>>> However, we are friends with one other couple who has always
>>>> declined to pay for more than they ordered (for the record, my
>>>> husband and I have always been the ones to order more), and my
>>>> husband has always grumbled afterward to me about €œTonys€� stinginess.
>>>>
>>>> Last night we had dinner with them, and my husband and I ordered $40
>>>> more worth of food and drinks than Tony and his wife. When Tony
>>>> calculated how much they owed, my husband got angry and confronted
>>>> him, saying that these calculations had always annoyed him, arguing
>>>> that paying a little extra is the cost of going out with friends.
>>>>
>>>> I dont think friends are obligated to subsidize my husbands and my
>>>> appetizers, wine, dessert, etc., especially not when its $40 worth.
>>>> Also, I think its okay to request separate checks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gentle Reader €¢ This problem is likely to solve itself when you find
>>>> that you are the only person left willing to go out for dinner with
>>>> your husband.
>>>>
>>>> Funny how his idea of polite sharing always seems to work in his
>>>> favor. Miss Manners notices that he is not paying that €œlittle extra
>>>> cost of going out with friends"; he is charging them for the
>>>> privilege of going out with him.
>>>>
>>>> It is true that it would be petty to grudge the cost of offering
>>>> hospitality. But this is not the case in a restaurant, where it is
>>>> agreed that each of you is buying a meal. There is nothing
>>>> unfriendly about requesting separate checks, which would be a good
>>>> idea if you want to have any friends left.
>>>>
>>>> (end)
>>>>
>>>> Some people! I wouldn't expect anyone other than a crass teenager to
>>>> get mad.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lenona.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>>
>>> For a regularly repeating $40 split meal subsidy?
>>>
>>> Wow.
>>>
>>
>> must be a progressive.
> On the contrary! InÂ* my experience, liberals and left-wingers will
> nickel and dime a restaurant bill to death! It's always the well-heeled,
> conservative voters who "generously" split the bill evenly.


Conservatives do tend to fiscal conservatism I suppose...but subsidy?

Who knew?

;-)

On 1/9/2018 1:48 PM, graham wrote:

>>>> The difference in price between what each couple orders is usually
>>>> only $10 to $20, meaning that the couple who spent less only
>>>> contributes $5 to $10 for the other couples food.
>>>>


>>
>> must be a progressive.
> On the contrary! InÂ* my experience, liberals and left-wingers will
> nickel and dime a restaurant bill to death! It's always the well-heeled,
> conservative voters who "generously" split the bill evenly.

Politics aside, what has worked for us is one of three scenarios
I pay it all
You pay it all
We split it even

If I was ordering lopsided I'd certainly add in more than half. The
husband of the writer is just a cheap SOB taking advantage of friends.
I'd let it go the first time, maybe would not say anything the second
time, but there would not be a third time.

On 2018-01-09 12:02 PM, Casa estilo antiguo wrote:
> On 1/9/2018 11:44 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>> On 1/9/2018 10:30 AM, Casa estilo antiguo wrote:
>>> On 1/9/2018 11:28 AM, wrote:
>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.57759b6bf855
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Miss Manners €¢ When my husband and I go out to dinner with
>>>> another couple, he thinks its petty either to request separate
>>>> checks or to calculate afterward how much each couple owes. He
>>>> believes the check should always be divided equally, and this is
>>>> what we do with most friends.
>>>>
>>>> The difference in price between what each couple orders is usually
>>>> only $10 to $20, meaning that the couple who spent less only
>>>> contributes $5 to $10 for the other couples food.
>>>>
>>>> However, we are friends with one other couple who has always
>>>> declined to pay for more than they ordered (for the record, my
>>>> husband and I have always been the ones to order more), and my
>>>> husband has always grumbled afterward to me about €œTonys€� stinginess.
>>>>
>>>> Last night we had dinner with them, and my husband and I ordered $40
>>>> more worth of food and drinks than Tony and his wife. When Tony
>>>> calculated how much they owed, my husband got angry and confronted
>>>> him, saying that these calculations had always annoyed him, arguing
>>>> that paying a little extra is the cost of going out with friends.
>>>>
>>>> I dont think friends are obligated to subsidize my husbands and my
>>>> appetizers, wine, dessert, etc., especially not when its $40 worth.
>>>> Also, I think its okay to request separate checks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gentle Reader €¢ This problem is likely to solve itself when you find
>>>> that you are the only person left willing to go out for dinner with
>>>> your husband.
>>>>
>>>> Funny how his idea of polite sharing always seems to work in his
>>>> favor. Miss Manners notices that he is not paying that €œlittle extra
>>>> cost of going out with friends"; he is charging them for the
>>>> privilege of going out with him.
>>>>
>>>> It is true that it would be petty to grudge the cost of offering
>>>> hospitality. But this is not the case in a restaurant, where it is
>>>> agreed that each of you is buying a meal. There is nothing
>>>> unfriendly about requesting separate checks, which would be a good
>>>> idea if you want to have any friends left.
>>>>
>>>> (end)
>>>>
>>>> Some people! I wouldn't expect anyone other than a crass teenager to
>>>> get mad.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lenona.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>>
>>> For a regularly repeating $40 split meal subsidy?
>>>
>>> Wow.
>>>
>>
>> must be a progressive.
>
> <VBG>
:-) Everyone who disagrees with T&S is progressive!:-)

On 1/9/2018 2:11 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> Politics aside, what has worked for us is one of three scenarios
> I pay it all
> You pay it all
> We split it even
>
> If I was ordering lopsided I'd certainly add in more than half.Â* The
> husband of the writer is just a cheap SOB taking advantage of friends.
> I'd let it go the first time, maybe would not say anything the second
> time, but there would not be a third time.

I agree with you 100%. If I like you enough to spend time with
you at a restaurant, I'm going to split the check or we take turns
paying. It goes both ways, I'm not going to begrudge you a few
bucks and I'd hope vice versa.

Now, if the other person orders a lot out of line with me I'd be
very disappointed if they didn't attempt to make up for that. It's
a good reason not to order a bunch of extras if you want to split
the bill. I would never let that slide if it was me doing the
most of the ordering, it would be my cue it was my turn to pay the
bill.

The guy's a jerk but I'd also rather not go out all the time with
"Tony" who's keeping score, either. Maybe he's been burned by jerk
before. Who knows.

nancy

On 2018-01-09 2:11 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 1/9/2018 1:48 PM, graham wrote:

> Politics aside, what has worked for us is one of three scenarios
> I pay it all
> You pay it all
> We split it even
>
> If I was ordering lopsided I'd certainly add in more than half.Â* The
> husband of the writer is just a cheap SOB taking advantage of friends.
> I'd let it go the first time, maybe would not say anything the second
> time, but there would not be a third time.


I am fine with separate bills. It means that I don't have to feel guilty
about ordering something more expensive if I want to, and that I don't
have to pay for the extravagance of someone else and not get to benefit
from it.

We don't know what sort of restaurants they are going to and what sorts
of bills they are running up. If the bill is $500, then a $40 disparity
is minor. I might even suggest that if they can afford to go out for an
expensive dinner like that the extra $40 should not be an issue. If
they are going to a less expensive place an extra meal or 5 extra
drinks, then he should pay.

I agree with you. Let it go the first time. Say nothing the second time,
but the pattern is clear and there will not be a third time.

I can tell you that I have treated lots of people to dinners, bu there
have been occasions where people have really taken advantage. There were
no second dinners for them. The big niece is an example of that. When we
took her and her husband out for lunch she ordered a lunch special that
involved an entree and choice of salad or soup. She opted for soup, but
then ordered a large salad. Excuse me, but a large salad is a meal.
Then she ordered a cheese platter (for two) for herself for dessert. I
paid it, but it will never happen again. Last year her mother took her
and us out for supper and she pulled a similar stunt, ordering an entree
that came with a side and then ordering both sides.

We had a guy at work you used to show up at at meal time and come with
us to restaurants and then not have money to pay. They are all playing
variations of the same game. The come along and take advantage and then
expect to make you feel guilty if you call them out on their games, as
if we are the cheap ones.

On 2018-01-09 4:55 PM, Nancy Young wrote:

> Now, if the other person orders a lot out of line with me I'd be
> very disappointed if they didn't attempt to make up for that.Â* It's
> a good reason not to order a bunch of extras if you want to split
> the bill.Â* I would never let that slide if it was me doing the
> most of the ordering, it would be my cue it was my turn to pay the
> bill.

Indeed. If you are planning to split the check you should try to match
the other couple. If they want to go straight to the entree, don't order
an appetizer. If they are happy with one glass of wine, don't go
ordering a second or third bottle.


> The guy's a jerk but I'd also rather not go out all the time with
> "Tony" who's keeping score, either.Â* Maybe he's been burned by jerk
> before.Â* Who knows.

I am betting on the latter. This is an issue for the woman because it
happens all the time. He husband is upset because he has been called on
his chiseling ways. He is whining about people being cheap, but he is
the one who always orders more and he is the one who is always expecting
others to subsidize him.


I can think of a worse case. A couple I know who went on vacation to an
all inclusive resort in the Caribbean. The wife drinks very moderately
and the husband does not drink at all. Friends of theirs went to the
same island but stayed elsewhere. The other couple are both successful
lawyers and are high rollers. Instead of eating at the all inclusive,
for which they had already paid, these guys went out for dinner
everything with the high living lawyers. The lawyers would order a
couple bottles of very expensive wine.

The couple I knew were a little miffed about having to split the bill
and pay for the very expensive wine they did not even drink. I am
wondering how they even get themselves into a situation. It would be bad
enough that it happened once, but apparently it was every night. They
could have eaten a meal they had already paid for in the all inclusive,
but instead, they ended up paying for meals elsewhere and subsidizing a
couple who are much better off than they are.

On 1/9/2018 5:49 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2018-01-09 4:55 PM, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> Now, if the other person orders a lot out of line with me I'd be
>> very disappointed if they didn't attempt to make up for that.Â* It's
>> a good reason not to order a bunch of extras if you want to split
>> the bill.Â* I would never let that slide if it was me doing the
>> most of the ordering, it would be my cue it was my turn to pay the
>> bill.
>
> Indeed. If you are planning to split the check you should try to match
> the other couple. If they want to go straight to the entree, don't order
> an appetizer.Â* If they are happy with one glass of wine, don't go
> ordering a second or third bottle.

Exactly. And money aside, it's kind of weird to sit there twiddling
your thumbs while the other people eat and drink a lot more.

>> The guy's a jerk but I'd also rather not go out all the time with
>> "Tony" who's keeping score, either.Â* Maybe he's been burned by jerk
>> before.Â* Who knows.
>
> I am betting on the latter. This is an issue for the woman because it
> happens all the time. He husband is upset because he has been called on
> his chiseling ways. He is whining about people being cheap, but he is
> the one who always orders more and he is the one who is always expecting
> others to subsidize him.

It's confusing to me why these two couples have gone through this so
many times. I'd be busy when Mr Big Spender called.

> I can think of a worse case. A couple I know who went on vacation to an
> all inclusive resort in the Caribbean. The wife drinks very moderately
> and the husband does not drink at all.Â* Friends of theirs went to the
> same island but stayed elsewhere. The other couple are both successful
> lawyers and are high rollers. Instead of eating at the all inclusive,
> for which they had already paid, these guys went out for dinner
> everything with the high living lawyers.Â* The lawyers would order a
> couple bottles of very expensive wine.
>
> The couple I knew were a little miffed about having to split the bill
> and pay for the very expensive wine they did not even drink.Â* I am
> wondering how they even get themselves into a situation. It would be bad
> enough that it happened once, but apparently it was every night.

That's their fault, fool me once and all. Clearly they were getting
something by hanging around with these other people or they'd say No
thanks, we're eating at our resort.

>They
> could have eaten a meal they had already paid for in the all inclusive,
> but instead, they ended up paying for meals elsewhere and subsidizing a
> couple who are much better off than they are.

After the first meal they knew what they were in for. They shouldn't
keep complaining about it. And the well off couple is like, look how
cheaply we partied. Don't hang around with takers.

nancy

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> On 1/9/2018 1:48 PM, graham wrote:
>
> > > > > The difference in price between what each couple orders is
> > > > > usually only $10 to $20, meaning that the couple who spent
> > > > > less only contributes $5 to $10 for the other couples food.
> > > > >
>
>
> > >
> > > must be a progressive.
> > On the contrary! InÂ* my experience, liberals and left-wingers will
> > nickel and dime a restaurant bill to death! It's always the
> > well-heeled, conservative voters who "generously" split the bill
> > evenly.
>
> Politics aside, what has worked for us is one of three scenarios
> I pay it all
> You pay it all
> We split it even
>
> If I was ordering lopsided I'd certainly add in more than half. The
> husband of the writer is just a cheap SOB taking advantage of
> friends. I'd let it go the first time, maybe would not say anything
> the second time, but there would not be a third time.

Same here. I take my friends out on various simple 'adventures' in
ethnic grocery places (or ones with good sales). Sometimes there is a
meal place either near, or right there.

My ethics are simple. If we keep it to under 10$ each and there are
4-5 of us, I buy.

My friends do ok, but are not 'well heeled' and this is taken into
account when a place is selected. They are always lunch places and
many times, just a simple noshe sort of place. 5-9$ for a normal meal
and tea or soda. By something never needing to be spoken, they cover
the tip if I pay for the meals.

Now if there are 8 of us, I generally will get a few interesting
appetizers and shre them about (and pay for them) and they cover my
share of the tip.

Simple and clean.

Carol

Dave Smith wrote:

> On 2018-01-09 4:55 PM, Nancy Young wrote:
>
> > Now, if the other person orders a lot out of line with me I'd be
> > very disappointed if they didn't attempt to make up for that.Â* It's
> > a good reason not to order a bunch of extras if you want to split
> > the bill.Â* I would never let that slide if it was me doing the
> > most of the ordering, it would be my cue it was my turn to pay the
> > bill.
>
> Indeed. If you are planning to split the check you should try to
> match the other couple. If they want to go straight to the entree,
> don't order an appetizer. If they are happy with one glass of wine,
> don't go ordering a second or third bottle.
>
>
> > The guy's a jerk but I'd also rather not go out all the time with
> > "Tony" who's keeping score, either.Â* Maybe he's been burned by jerk
> > before.Â* Who knows.
>
> I am betting on the latter. This is an issue for the woman because it
> happens all the time. He husband is upset because he has been called
> on his chiseling ways. He is whining about people being cheap, but he
> is the one who always orders more and he is the one who is always
> expecting others to subsidize him.
>
>
> I can think of a worse case. A couple I know who went on vacation to
> an all inclusive resort in the Caribbean. The wife drinks very
> moderately and the husband does not drink at all. Friends of theirs
> went to the same island but stayed elsewhere. The other couple are
> both successful lawyers and are high rollers. Instead of eating at
> the all inclusive, for which they had already paid, these guys went
> out for dinner everything with the high living lawyers. The lawyers
> would order a couple bottles of very expensive wine.
>
> The couple I knew were a little miffed about having to split the bill
> and pay for the very expensive wine they did not even drink. I am
> wondering how they even get themselves into a situation. It would be
> bad enough that it happened once, but apparently it was every night.
> They could have eaten a meal they had already paid for in the all
> inclusive, but instead, they ended up paying for meals elsewhere and
> subsidizing a couple who are much better off than they are.

That would have upset me too, but I'd have stopped it. They could come
to my place and pay for what they ordered.

Keeping up with the Jones's can be very silly.

When I take my friends out, we all know most of them are on social
security only and counting pennies at times. They in turn know I'm not
at all 'rich' but want to treat them to something fun maybe 2-3 times a
year that is *different* for them.

The last place was a Middle Eastern sort with Shwarmas and a salad so
big, it fed all of us. Once I saw it, I asked for small bowls of all
of their different dressings and we had fun testing them all.

I am looking at a new place that has Brazillian cooked 3lb whole
chicken (14.99) and some interesting sides for the next trip. It will
cost me about 30$ but this time, feed 6 at our lunch eating levels I
bet. Simple pure fun (and my daughter is 1 of the 6 so we are 2 for me
to pay for anyways).

I will let my friends catch the tip (grin).

Carol

On 1/9/2018 12:24 PM, graham wrote:
> On 2018-01-09 12:02 PM, Casa estilo antiguo wrote:
>> On 1/9/2018 11:44 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>>> On 1/9/2018 10:30 AM, Casa estilo antiguo wrote:
>>>> On 1/9/2018 11:28 AM, wrote:
>>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.57759b6bf855
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Miss Manners €¢ When my husband and I go out to dinner with
>>>>> another couple, he thinks its petty either to request separate
>>>>> checks or to calculate afterward how much each couple owes. He
>>>>> believes the check should always be divided equally, and this is
>>>>> what we do with most friends.
>>>>>
>>>>> The difference in price between what each couple orders is usually
>>>>> only $10 to $20, meaning that the couple who spent less only
>>>>> contributes $5 to $10 for the other couples food.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, we are friends with one other couple who has always
>>>>> declined to pay for more than they ordered (for the record, my
>>>>> husband and I have always been the ones to order more), and my
>>>>> husband has always grumbled afterward to me about €œTonys€� stinginess.
>>>>>
>>>>> Last night we had dinner with them, and my husband and I ordered $40
>>>>> more worth of food and drinks than Tony and his wife. When Tony
>>>>> calculated how much they owed, my husband got angry and confronted
>>>>> him, saying that these calculations had always annoyed him, arguing
>>>>> that paying a little extra is the cost of going out with friends.
>>>>>
>>>>> I dont think friends are obligated to subsidize my husbands and my
>>>>> appetizers, wine, dessert, etc., especially not when its $40 worth.
>>>>> Also, I think its okay to request separate checks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Gentle Reader €¢ This problem is likely to solve itself when you find
>>>>> that you are the only person left willing to go out for dinner with
>>>>> your husband.
>>>>>
>>>>> Funny how his idea of polite sharing always seems to work in his
>>>>> favor. Miss Manners notices that he is not paying that €œlittle extra
>>>>> cost of going out with friends"; he is charging them for the
>>>>> privilege of going out with him.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is true that it would be petty to grudge the cost of offering
>>>>> hospitality. But this is not the case in a restaurant, where it is
>>>>> agreed that each of you is buying a meal. There is nothing
>>>>> unfriendly about requesting separate checks, which would be a good
>>>>> idea if you want to have any friends left.
>>>>>
>>>>> (end)
>>>>>
>>>>> Some people! I wouldn't expect anyone other than a crass teenager to
>>>>> get mad.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Lenona.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Huh?
>>>>
>>>> For a regularly repeating $40 split meal subsidy?
>>>>
>>>> Wow.
>>>>
>>>
>>> must be a progressive.
>>
>> <VBG>
> :-) Everyone who disagrees with T&S is progressive!:-)
>

Not everyone who disagrees with me is a progressive, but they are all
equally wrong.

On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 19:41:40 -0500, Nancy Young >
wrote:

>On 1/9/2018 5:49 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2018-01-09 4:55 PM, Nancy Young wrote:
>>
>>> Now, if the other person orders a lot out of line with me I'd be
>>> very disappointed if they didn't attempt to make up for that.* It's
>>> a good reason not to order a bunch of extras if you want to split
>>> the bill.* I would never let that slide if it was me doing the
>>> most of the ordering, it would be my cue it was my turn to pay the
>>> bill.
>>
>> Indeed. If you are planning to split the check you should try to match
>> the other couple. If they want to go straight to the entree, don't order
>> an appetizer.* If they are happy with one glass of wine, don't go
>> ordering a second or third bottle.
>
>Exactly. And money aside, it's kind of weird to sit there twiddling
>your thumbs while the other people eat and drink a lot more.
>
>>> The guy's a jerk but I'd also rather not go out all the time with
>>> "Tony" who's keeping score, either.* Maybe he's been burned by jerk
>>> before.* Who knows.
>>
>> I am betting on the latter. This is an issue for the woman because it
>> happens all the time. He husband is upset because he has been called on
>> his chiseling ways. He is whining about people being cheap, but he is
>> the one who always orders more and he is the one who is always expecting
>> others to subsidize him.
>
>It's confusing to me why these two couples have gone through this so
>many times. I'd be busy when Mr Big Spender called.
>
>> I can think of a worse case. A couple I know who went on vacation to an
>> all inclusive resort in the Caribbean. The wife drinks very moderately
>> and the husband does not drink at all.* Friends of theirs went to the
>> same island but stayed elsewhere. The other couple are both successful
>> lawyers and are high rollers. Instead of eating at the all inclusive,
>> for which they had already paid, these guys went out for dinner
>> everything with the high living lawyers.* The lawyers would order a
>> couple bottles of very expensive wine.
>>
>> The couple I knew were a little miffed about having to split the bill
>> and pay for the very expensive wine they did not even drink.* I am
>> wondering how they even get themselves into a situation. It would be bad
>> enough that it happened once, but apparently it was every night.
>
>That's their fault, fool me once and all. Clearly they were getting
>something by hanging around with these other people or they'd say No
>thanks, we're eating at our resort.
>
>>They
>> could have eaten a meal they had already paid for in the all inclusive,
>> but instead, they ended up paying for meals elsewhere and subsidizing a
>> couple who are much better off than they are.
>
>After the first meal they knew what they were in for. They shouldn't
>keep complaining about it. And the well off couple is like, look how
>cheaply we partied. Don't hang around with takers.
>
>nancy

With people whose dining habits we don't know we find the least
stressful situation is separate checks... makes no sense to ruin a
meal by going out with people who turn out to be schnorres... anyone
refuses separate checks it's an easy decision.
However often a group of us goes out to a pre-priced meal, like just
before Christmas eight of us went to a very nice seafood restaurant
for a brunch buffet to celebrate one woman's birthday, eat as
much/whatever; $22 a head. Naturally we all paid for the birthday
girl. A great time was had by all and no angst over who ate what.
http://www.redsrestaurant.com/index....tsmenus/sunday
Several of the better restaurants around here do Sunday brunch
buffets... great food at bargain prices.

On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 18:03:57 -0800, Taxed and Spent
> wrote:

>On 1/9/2018 12:24 PM, graham wrote:
>> On 2018-01-09 12:02 PM, Casa estilo antiguo wrote:
>>> On 1/9/2018 11:44 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:

>>>>> For a regularly repeating $40 split meal subsidy?
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> must be a progressive.
>>>
>>> <VBG>
>> :-) Everyone who disagrees with T&S is progressive!:-)
>>
>
>Not everyone who disagrees with me is a progressive, but they are all
>equally wrong.

If it wasn't for progressive people, half of the US would be trying to
shoot the other half and the US would have started WW3 a long time
ago. All your roads and bridges would be falling apart because taxes
are evil and only your millionaires would have healthcare.

As an elderly Dutch journalist who spent half his life in the US
recently said: "The US is a third world country with a rich, white top
layer."

On 1/9/2018 7:13 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 18:03:57 -0800, Taxed and Spent
> > wrote:
>
>> On 1/9/2018 12:24 PM, graham wrote:
>>> On 2018-01-09 12:02 PM, Casa estilo antiguo wrote:
>>>> On 1/9/2018 11:44 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>
>>>>>> For a regularly repeating $40 split meal subsidy?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> must be a progressive.
>>>>
>>>> <VBG>
>>> :-) Everyone who disagrees with T&S is progressive!:-)
>>>
>>
>> Not everyone who disagrees with me is a progressive, but they are all
>> equally wrong.
>
> If it wasn't for progressive people, half of the US would be trying to
> shoot the other half and the US would have started WW3 a long time
> ago. All your roads and bridges would be falling apart because taxes
> are evil and only your millionaires would have healthcare.
>
> As an elderly Dutch journalist who spent half his life in the US
> recently said: "The US is a third world country with a rich, white top
> layer."
>

I thought half the US was already trying to shoot the other half.

And if the proggies didn't hand out money for votes, it would be
available to fix our roads.

Bruce wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 18:03:57 -0800, Taxed and Spent
> > wrote:
>
> >On 1/9/2018 12:24 PM, graham wrote:
> >> On 2018-01-09 12:02 PM, Casa estilo antiguo wrote:
> >>> On 1/9/2018 11:44 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>
> >>>>> For a regularly repeating $40 split meal subsidy?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wow.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> must be a progressive.
> >>>
> >>> <VBG>
> >> :-) Everyone who disagrees with T&S is progressive!:-)
> >>
> >
> >Not everyone who disagrees with me is a progressive, but they are all
> >equally wrong.
>
> If it wasn't for progressive people, half of the US would be trying to
> shoot the other half and the US would have started WW3 a long time
> ago. All your roads and bridges would be falling apart because taxes
> are evil and only your millionaires would have healthcare.
>
> As an elderly Dutch journalist who spent half his life in the US
> recently said: "The US is a third world country with a rich, white top
> layer."


Utter nonsense...the poor in the US live far better lives than the European middle class...they've higher disposable income, they have far more luxuries and conveniences...

Heck, in France they still use squat toilets and chamber pots...peeps croak during heat spells from lack of air conditioning...they have to save up for a few days to buy a cheeseburger even...AND the thieving socialist system ROBS folks of income, opportunity, and just basic everyday dignity.


--
Best
Greg

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:35:19 -0800 (PST), Steve La Wertz
> wrote:

>Bruce wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 18:03:57 -0800, Taxed and Spent
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On 1/9/2018 12:24 PM, graham wrote:
>> >> On 2018-01-09 12:02 PM, Casa estilo antiguo wrote:
>> >>> On 1/9/2018 11:44 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> For a regularly repeating $40 split meal subsidy?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Wow.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> must be a progressive.
>> >>>
>> >>> <VBG>
>> >> :-) Everyone who disagrees with T&S is progressive!:-)
>> >>
>> >
>> >Not everyone who disagrees with me is a progressive, but they are all
>> >equally wrong.
>>
>> If it wasn't for progressive people, half of the US would be trying to
>> shoot the other half and the US would have started WW3 a long time
>> ago. All your roads and bridges would be falling apart because taxes
>> are evil and only your millionaires would have healthcare.
>>
>> As an elderly Dutch journalist who spent half his life in the US
>> recently said: "The US is a third world country with a rich, white top
>> layer."
>
>
>Utter nonsense...the poor in the US live far better lives than the European middle class...they've higher disposable income, they have far more luxuries and conveniences...
>
>Heck, in France they still use squat toilets and chamber pots...peeps croak during heat spells from lack of air conditioning...they have to save up for a few days to buy a cheeseburger even...AND the thieving socialist system ROBS folks of income, opportunity, and just basic everyday dignity.

I don't think you travel abroad much

On 1/10/2018 10:54 AM, Bruce wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:35:19 -0800 (PST), Steve La Wertz
> > wrote:
>
>> Bruce wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 18:03:57 -0800, Taxed and Spent
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/9/2018 12:24 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-01-09 12:02 PM, Casa estilo antiguo wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/9/2018 11:44 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> For a regularly repeating $40 split meal subsidy?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> must be a progressive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <VBG>
>>>>> :-) Everyone who disagrees with T&S is progressive!:-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not everyone who disagrees with me is a progressive, but they are all
>>>> equally wrong.
>>>
>>> If it wasn't for progressive people, half of the US would be trying to
>>> shoot the other half and the US would have started WW3 a long time
>>> ago. All your roads and bridges would be falling apart because taxes
>>> are evil and only your millionaires would have healthcare.
>>>
>>> As an elderly Dutch journalist who spent half his life in the US
>>> recently said: "The US is a third world country with a rich, white top
>>> layer."
>>
>>
>> Utter nonsense...the poor in the US live far better lives than the European middle class...they've higher disposable income, they have far more luxuries and conveniences...
>>
>> Heck, in France they still use squat toilets and chamber pots...peeps croak during heat spells from lack of air conditioning...they have to save up for a few days to buy a cheeseburger even...AND the thieving socialist system ROBS folks of income, opportunity, and just basic everyday dignity.
>
> I don't think you travel abroad much
>


https://mises.org/blog/poor-us-are-r...ss-much-europe

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/21/be...-middle-class/

On 1/10/2018 12:35 PM, Steve La Wertz wrote:
> Bruce wrote:

>> As an elderly Dutch journalist who spent half his life in the US
>> recently said: "The US is a third world country with a rich, white top
>> layer."
>
>
> Utter nonsense...the poor in the US live far better lives than the European middle class...they've higher disposable income, they have far more luxuries and conveniences...

Brucy got himself all excited about this 'knowledgeable' boor but
third world in no way describes any of the 'not rich' people I know.
None. Some journalist.

nancy

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:48:11 -0500, Nancy Young >
wrote:

>On 1/10/2018 12:35 PM, Steve La Wertz wrote:
>> Bruce wrote:
>
>>> As an elderly Dutch journalist who spent half his life in the US
>>> recently said: "The US is a third world country with a rich, white top
>>> layer."
>>
>>
>> Utter nonsense...the poor in the US live far better lives than the European middle class...they've higher disposable income, they have far more luxuries and conveniences...
>
>Brucy got himself all excited about this 'knowledgeable' boor but
>third world in no way describes any of the 'not rich' people I know.
>None. Some journalist.

Hey. I'm just quoting the guy. I've never been to the US myself. Maybe
it's a wonderful place.

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 11:02:18 -0800, Taxed and Spent
> wrote:

>On 1/10/2018 10:54 AM, Bruce wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:35:19 -0800 (PST), Steve La Wertz
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 18:03:57 -0800, Taxed and Spent
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/9/2018 12:24 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018-01-09 12:02 PM, Casa estilo antiguo wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/9/2018 11:44 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For a regularly repeating $40 split meal subsidy?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> must be a progressive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <VBG>
>>>>>> :-) Everyone who disagrees with T&S is progressive!:-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not everyone who disagrees with me is a progressive, but they are all
>>>>> equally wrong.
>>>>
>>>> If it wasn't for progressive people, half of the US would be trying to
>>>> shoot the other half and the US would have started WW3 a long time
>>>> ago. All your roads and bridges would be falling apart because taxes
>>>> are evil and only your millionaires would have healthcare.
>>>>
>>>> As an elderly Dutch journalist who spent half his life in the US
>>>> recently said: "The US is a third world country with a rich, white top
>>>> layer."
>>>
>>>
>>> Utter nonsense...the poor in the US live far better lives than the European middle class...they've higher disposable income, they have far more luxuries and conveniences...
>>>
>>> Heck, in France they still use squat toilets and chamber pots...peeps croak during heat spells from lack of air conditioning...they have to save up for a few days to buy a cheeseburger even...AND the thieving socialist system ROBS folks of income, opportunity, and just basic everyday dignity.
>>
>> I don't think you travel abroad much
>>
>
>
>https://mises.org/blog/poor-us-are-r...ss-much-europe
>
>http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/21/be...-middle-class/

Friends of mine went to Times Square (or whatever it's called: where
that big clock is). They loved it. But they also said: "If you turn
the wrong corner twice, you're in the third world."

Is that true? Well, they wouldn't lie.

On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 05:54:01 +1100, Bruce >
wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:35:19 -0800 (PST), Steve La Wertz
> wrote:
>
>>Bruce wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 18:03:57 -0800, Taxed and Spent
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >On 1/9/2018 12:24 PM, graham wrote:
>>> >> On 2018-01-09 12:02 PM, Casa estilo antiguo wrote:
>>> >>> On 1/9/2018 11:44 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>>> For a regularly repeating $40 split meal subsidy?
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Wow.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> must be a progressive.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> <VBG>
>>> >> :-) Everyone who disagrees with T&S is progressive!:-)
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >Not everyone who disagrees with me is a progressive, but they are all
>>> >equally wrong.
>>>
>>> If it wasn't for progressive people, half of the US would be trying to
>>> shoot the other half and the US would have started WW3 a long time
>>> ago. All your roads and bridges would be falling apart because taxes
>>> are evil and only your millionaires would have healthcare.
>>>
>>> As an elderly Dutch journalist who spent half his life in the US
>>> recently said: "The US is a third world country with a rich, white top
>>> layer."
>>
>>
>>Utter nonsense...the poor in the US live far better lives than the European middle class...they've higher disposable income, they have far more luxuries and conveniences...
>>
>>Heck, in France they still use squat toilets and chamber pots...peeps croak during heat spells from lack of air conditioning...they have to save up for a few days to buy a cheeseburger even...AND the thieving socialist system ROBS folks of income, opportunity, and just basic everyday dignity.
>
>I don't think you travel abroad much

Going to France and shacking up at the Sheraton is NOT traveling.
Pittifully few Americans who travel to foriegn countries see how the
regular folks live, they visit the major cities and stay at the
Americanized tourist spots... they'd be wiser to have stayed home and
saved their dollars.

On 2018-01-10 12:02 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
> On 1/10/2018 10:54 AM, Bruce wrote:

>>>> As an elderly Dutch journalist who spent half his life in the US
>>>> recently said: "The US is a third world country with a rich, white top
>>>> layer."
>>>
>>>
>>> Utter nonsense...the poor in the US live far better lives than the
>>> European middle class...they've higher disposable income, they have
>>> far more luxuries and conveniences...
>>>
>>> Heck, in France they still use squat toilets and chamber pots...peeps
>>> croak during heat spells from lack of air conditioning...they have to
>>> save up for a few days to buy a cheeseburger even...AND the thieving
>>> socialist system ROBS folks of income, opportunity, and just basic
>>> everyday dignity.
>>
>> I don't think you travel abroad much
>>
>
>
> https://mises.org/blog/poor-us-are-r...ss-much-europe
>
> http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/21/be...-middle-class/
>
Why don't you cite more credible sources such as Mad Magazine or The Onion?

On 1/10/2018 1:34 PM, wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 05:54:01 +1100, Bruce >
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:35:19 -0800 (PST), Steve La Wertz
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 18:03:57 -0800, Taxed and Spent
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/9/2018 12:24 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018-01-09 12:02 PM, Casa estilo antiguo wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/9/2018 11:44 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For a regularly repeating $40 split meal subsidy?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> must be a progressive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <VBG>
>>>>>> :-) Everyone who disagrees with T&S is progressive!:-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not everyone who disagrees with me is a progressive, but they are all
>>>>> equally wrong.
>>>>
>>>> If it wasn't for progressive people, half of the US would be trying to
>>>> shoot the other half and the US would have started WW3 a long time
>>>> ago. All your roads and bridges would be falling apart because taxes
>>>> are evil and only your millionaires would have healthcare.
>>>>
>>>> As an elderly Dutch journalist who spent half his life in the US
>>>> recently said: "The US is a third world country with a rich, white top
>>>> layer."
>>>
>>>
>>> Utter nonsense...the poor in the US live far better lives than the European middle class...they've higher disposable income, they have far more luxuries and conveniences...
>>>
>>> Heck, in France they still use squat toilets and chamber pots...peeps croak during heat spells from lack of air conditioning...they have to save up for a few days to buy a cheeseburger even...AND the thieving socialist system ROBS folks of income, opportunity, and just basic everyday dignity.
>>
>> I don't think you travel abroad much
>
> Going to France and shacking up at the Sheraton is NOT traveling.
> Pittifully few Americans who travel to foriegn countries see how the
> regular folks live, they visit the major cities and stay at the
> Americanized tourist spots... they'd be wiser to have stayed home and
> saved their dollars.
>

Is there /anything/ you can't go sour on?

Not everyone wants to do immersion travel, cope.

Free will, etc.

On 1/10/2018 1:50 PM, graham wrote:
> On 2018-01-10 12:02 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>> On 1/10/2018 10:54 AM, Bruce wrote:
>
>>>>> As an elderly Dutch journalist who spent half his life in the US
>>>>> recently said: "The US is a third world country with a rich, white top
>>>>> layer."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Utter nonsense...the poor in the US live far better lives than the
>>>> European middle class...they've higher disposable income, they have
>>>> far more luxuries and conveniences...
>>>>
>>>> Heck, in France they still use squat toilets and chamber
>>>> pots...peeps croak during heat spells from lack of air
>>>> conditioning...they have to save up for a few days to buy a
>>>> cheeseburger even...AND the thieving socialist system ROBS folks of
>>>> income, opportunity, and just basic everyday dignity.
>>>
>>> I don't think you travel abroad much
>>>
>>
>>
>> https://mises.org/blog/poor-us-are-r...ss-much-europe
>>
>> http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/21/be...-middle-class/
>>
> Why don't you cite more credible sources such as Mad Magazine or The Onion?


If the methodology is sound the source is irrelevant.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors.../#4fa36e977bf4

The Pew Research Center has an update on their shrinking American middle
class thing. You know the idea, the middle's getting hollowed out and
this is going to be a disaster for all concerned? They've changed the
way they do it a bit, in a good way, but the general result is that
indeed, the American middle class is shrinking. This is also entirely a
result of increasing inequality. Not something I worry about in the
slightest but obviously others do.

However, by far the most interesting finding to me is that America
remains very much richer than those other European countries. More
unequal, yes, but because the general income is higher then the general
living standard is also higher. Which leads to an interesting question.
Well, what is it that you want? More equality or higher incomes?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...-middle-class/

But how does the well-being of the American family compare with the
well-being of people in other countries?

The U.S. still fares very well on that score. On a global scale, the
vast majority of Americans are either upper-middle income or high
income. And many Americans who are classified as €œpoor€� by the U.S.
government would be middle income globally, according to a new Pew
Research Center analysis.

The analysis includes 111 countries, which account for 88% of the global
population. We divided people into five income groups: People who are
poor (living on $2 or less daily), low income ($2.01-10), middle income
($10.01-20), upper-middle income ($20.01-50) and high income (more than
$50). The global middle-income range translates to an annual income of
$14,600 to $29,200 for a family of four.

The U.S. stands head and shoulders above the rest of the world. More
than half (56%) of Americans were high income by the global standard,
living on more than $50 per day in 2011, the latest year that could be
analyzed with the available data. Another 32% were upper-middle income.
In other words, almost nine-in-ten Americans had a standard of living
that was above the global middle-income standard. Only 7% of people in
the U.S. were middle income, 3% were low income and 2% were poor.

Compare that with the rest of the world, where 13% of people globally
could be considered middle income in 2011. Most people in the world were
either low income (56%) or poor (15%), and relatively few were
upper-middle income (9%) or high income (7%).

This is not to say that the U.S., along with other advanced economies,
does not struggle with issues of income inequality and poverty. But
given the much higher standard of living in the U.S., what is considered
poor here is a level of income still not available to most people globally.

On 2018-01-10 3:06 PM, Bruce wrote:

> Friends of mine went to Times Square (or whatever it's called: where
> that big clock is). They loved it. But they also said: "If you turn
> the wrong corner twice, you're in the third world."
>
> Is that true? Well, they wouldn't lie.

I had a similar experience in Washington DC. We went by the White House
and a few blocks later I made a left instead of a right and ended up in
a slum. I was the only one who actually stopped at a red light, and
nearby there was a corner store with a bunch of cop cars and a body on
the ground. OTOH, there was lots of really nice stuff.

On 2018-01-10 3:34 PM, wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 05:54:01 +1100, Bruce >

>> I don't think you travel abroad much
>
> Going to France and shacking up at the Sheraton is NOT traveling.
> Pittifully few Americans who travel to foriegn countries see how the
> regular folks live, they visit the major cities and stay at the
> Americanized tourist spots... they'd be wiser to have stayed home and
> saved their dollars.
>
Really? I guess you have not been there.

On 1/10/2018 6:39 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2018-01-10 3:06 PM, Bruce wrote:
>
>> Friends of mine went to Times Square (or whatever it's called: where
>> that big clock is). They loved it. But they also said: "If you turn
>> the wrong corner twice, you're in the third world."
>>
>> Is that true? Well, they wouldn't lie.
>
> I had a similar experience in Washington DC. We went by the White House
> and a few blocks later I made a left instead of a right and ended up in
> a slum.Â* I was the only one who actually stopped at a red light, and
> nearby there was a corner store with a bunch of cop cars and a body on
> the ground. OTOH, there was lots of really nice stuff.
>
>
Pretty much every big city has a section like that. The bigger the
city, the bigger the slum.

On 1/10/2018 7:20 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 1/10/2018 6:39 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2018-01-10 3:06 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>
>>> Friends of mine went to Times Square (or whatever it's called: where
>>> that big clock is). They loved it. But they also said: "If you turn
>>> the wrong corner twice, you're in the third world."
>>>
>>> Is that true? Well, they wouldn't lie.
>>
>> I had a similar experience in Washington DC. We went by the White
>> House and a few blocks later I made a left instead of a right and
>> ended up in a slum.Â* I was the only one who actually stopped at a red
>> light, and nearby there was a corner store with a bunch of cop cars
>> and a body on the ground. OTOH, there was lots of really nice stuff.
>>
>>
> Pretty much every big city has a section like that.Â* The bigger the
> city, the bigger the slum.


Um...it's next to the entire nation's seat of power....that's creepy....

On 2018-01-10 9:20 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 1/10/2018 6:39 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2018-01-10 3:06 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>
>>> Friends of mine went to Times Square (or whatever it's called: where
>>> that big clock is). They loved it. But they also said: "If you turn
>>> the wrong corner twice, you're in the third world."
>>>
>>> Is that true? Well, they wouldn't lie.
>>
>> I had a similar experience in Washington DC. We went by the White
>> House and a few blocks later I made a left instead of a right and
>> ended up in a slum.Â* I was the only one who actually stopped at a red
>> light, and nearby there was a corner store with a bunch of cop cars
>> and a body on the ground. OTOH, there was lots of really nice stuff.
>>
>>
> Pretty much every big city has a section like that.Â* The bigger the
> city, the bigger the slum.

I can guarantee you that if you visit Ottawa you won't see stuff like
that within a mile of Parliament or the prime minister's residence. I
was just a few blocks from the prime minister's residence.

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:42:19 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2018-01-10 3:34 PM, wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 05:54:01 +1100, Bruce >
>
>>> I don't think you travel abroad much
>>
>> Going to France and shacking up at the Sheraton is NOT traveling.
>> Pittifully few Americans who travel to foriegn countries see how the
>> regular folks live, they visit the major cities and stay at the
>> Americanized tourist spots... they'd be wiser to have stayed home and
>> saved their dollars.
>>
>Really? I guess you have not been there.

I agree about the tourist spots. I loved Paris in the 70s and early
80s. Now, I wouldn't go there anymore. Go to a city you haven't heard
of instead if you want to see the real France.

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:39:47 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2018-01-10 3:06 PM, Bruce wrote:
>
>> Friends of mine went to Times Square (or whatever it's called: where
>> that big clock is). They loved it. But they also said: "If you turn
>> the wrong corner twice, you're in the third world."
>>
>> Is that true? Well, they wouldn't lie.
>
>I had a similar experience in Washington DC. We went by the White House
>and a few blocks later I made a left instead of a right and ended up in
>a slum. I was the only one who actually stopped at a red light, and
>nearby there was a corner store with a bunch of cop cars and a body on
>the ground. OTOH, there was lots of really nice stuff.

That sounds a bit like Brazil. There are beautiful parts, but in the
cities you have to know where not to go. Unbridled capitalism at
work...

On 2018-01-10 10:32 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:39:47 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2018-01-10 3:06 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>
>>> Friends of mine went to Times Square (or whatever it's called: where
>>> that big clock is). They loved it. But they also said: "If you turn
>>> the wrong corner twice, you're in the third world."
>>>
>>> Is that true? Well, they wouldn't lie.
>>
>> I had a similar experience in Washington DC. We went by the White House
>> and a few blocks later I made a left instead of a right and ended up in
>> a slum. I was the only one who actually stopped at a red light, and
>> nearby there was a corner store with a bunch of cop cars and a body on
>> the ground. OTOH, there was lots of really nice stuff.
>
> That sounds a bit like Brazil. There are beautiful parts, but in the
> cities you have to know where not to go. Unbridled capitalism at
> work...
>

Let's not even joke about the murder rates in the US being the same as
Brazil.

On 2018-01-10 8:32 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:42:19 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2018-01-10 3:34 PM, wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 05:54:01 +1100, Bruce >
>>
>>>> I don't think you travel abroad much
>>>
>>> Going to France and shacking up at the Sheraton is NOT traveling.
>>> Pittifully few Americans who travel to foriegn countries see how the
>>> regular folks live, they visit the major cities and stay at the
>>> Americanized tourist spots... they'd be wiser to have stayed home and
>>> saved their dollars.
>>>
>> Really? I guess you have not been there.
>
> I agree about the tourist spots. I loved Paris in the 70s and early
> 80s. Now, I wouldn't go there anymore. Go to a city you haven't heard
> of instead if you want to see the real France.
>
Or go on walking or cycling holidays. I've been on several holidays
cycling in different parts of rural France.

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 22:28:44 -0700, graham > wrote:

>On 2018-01-10 8:32 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:42:19 -0500, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2018-01-10 3:34 PM, wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 05:54:01 +1100, Bruce >
>>>
>>>>> I don't think you travel abroad much
>>>>
>>>> Going to France and shacking up at the Sheraton is NOT traveling.
>>>> Pittifully few Americans who travel to foriegn countries see how the
>>>> regular folks live, they visit the major cities and stay at the
>>>> Americanized tourist spots... they'd be wiser to have stayed home and
>>>> saved their dollars.
>>>>
>>> Really? I guess you have not been there.
>>
>> I agree about the tourist spots. I loved Paris in the 70s and early
>> 80s. Now, I wouldn't go there anymore. Go to a city you haven't heard
>> of instead if you want to see the real France.
>>
>Or go on walking or cycling holidays. I've been on several holidays
>cycling in different parts of rural France.

Yes, then you get to see the real country.

On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 3:06:39 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 11:02:18 -0800, Taxed and Spent
> > wrote:
>
> >On 1/10/2018 10:54 AM, Bruce wrote:
> >> On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:35:19 -0800 (PST), Steve La Wertz
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Bruce wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 18:03:57 -0800, Taxed and Spent
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 1/9/2018 12:24 PM, graham wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2018-01-09 12:02 PM, Casa estilo antiguo wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 1/9/2018 11:44 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>> For a regularly repeating $40 split meal subsidy?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Wow.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> must be a progressive.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> <VBG>
> >>>>>> :-) Everyone who disagrees with T&S is progressive!:-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not everyone who disagrees with me is a progressive, but they are all
> >>>>> equally wrong.
> >>>>
> >>>> If it wasn't for progressive people, half of the US would be trying to
> >>>> shoot the other half and the US would have started WW3 a long time
> >>>> ago. All your roads and bridges would be falling apart because taxes
> >>>> are evil and only your millionaires would have healthcare.
> >>>>
> >>>> As an elderly Dutch journalist who spent half his life in the US
> >>>> recently said: "The US is a third world country with a rich, white top
> >>>> layer."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Utter nonsense...the poor in the US live far better lives than the European middle class...they've higher disposable income, they have far more luxuries and conveniences...
> >>>
> >>> Heck, in France they still use squat toilets and chamber pots...peeps croak during heat spells from lack of air conditioning...they have to save up for a few days to buy a cheeseburger even...AND the thieving socialist system ROBS folks of income, opportunity, and just basic everyday dignity.
> >>
> >> I don't think you travel abroad much
> >>
> >
> >
> >https://mises.org/blog/poor-us-are-r...ss-much-europe
> >
> >http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/21/be...-middle-class/
>
> Friends of mine went to Times Square (or whatever it's called: where
> that big clock is). They loved it. But they also said: "If you turn
> the wrong corner twice, you're in the third world."
>
> Is that true? Well, they wouldn't lie.

Lots of big cities throughout the world are like that.

Cindy Hamilton