On Jun 21, 1:21*pm, blake murphy > wrote:
> fOn Sun, 21 Jun 2009 08:42:05 -0500, Lou Decruss wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:39:02 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" >
> > wrote:
>
> >>"gloria.p" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> brooklyn1 wrote:
> >>>> "Bobo Bonobo®" wrote:
> >>>> "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
>
> >>>>> But tens of millions still have jobs and can take advantage of bargains.
> >>>>> It
> >>>>> is important that people who do have an income still spend some of that
> >>>>> money to keep the economy afloat. If you need one, build a house, buy a
> >>>>> car, replace that broken appliance. Keep America working.
>
> >>> When was the last time you saw an appliance that was made in USA?
>
> >>Small appliances, no, but major appliances, yes, many are still made here
> >>but include many foreign parts in them. *In either case, if you need one and
> >>have the money, a longshoreman unloaded it, a trucker moved it, a
> >>distributor handled it, a retailer sold it to you, a delivery person may
> >>have come and set it up.
>
> >>With 8% unemployment, there are still 92% of us working. *IMO, it is far
> >>better to keep and to create jobs than to give government benefits.
>
> > I totally agree. *From what I understand those figures don't include
> > those who gave up looking for a job or live off the government. *
>
> how are all of those who give up looking *'living off government'?
> unemployment benefits are limited, and require you to look for work. *those
> no longer looking drop off the radar entirely - they're not counted in the
> figures. *helps to make things look better than they are .
>
> >And
> > the 11% of the budget figure going to social services figure that gets
> > tossed around here is disgusting. *
>
> > Lou
>
> since i seem to be the one dropping the eleven percent figure, i feel
> compelled to say once again that since it includes the deserving (i.e.,
> you, your brother-in-law, granny and grampa), what i'm suggesting is that
> the money going to shiftless bums isn't a major burden on you. *possibly
> you should be complaining about the many and varied tax dodges available to
> the upper two percent.

No doubt. Because income from working is taxed at a higher rate than
capital gains, and the payroll tax only applies to the first
howevermuch of income, the wealthiest pay a lower tax rate than the
median income earner. We've been conditioned by our tradition
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_ethic ) to look for bums and
other layabouts as the cause of our getting less than we feel we've
contributed to the economy, instead of looking at the parasites
feeding from above.

Considering that foot pain is my major physical malady of late, it is
hard to make the analogy, but the lowly nibbling at my ankles feel
like far less a threat than the sublime who seek to corrupt my heart
and deceive my mind to their much more well thought out ends.
>
> your pal,
> blake

--Bryan