So this is the health care plan

[ballpeen]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31106408

 

 

 

Health insurance ‘haves’ to pay for ‘have-nots’?

Senate considers curbing tax-free status of employer-provided benefits

 

By Tom Curry

National affairs writer

msnbc.com

updated 6:38 a.m. ET, Mon., June 8, 2009

 

 

As part of a health insurance reform package now before Congress, some of the 164 million Americans who are covered by employer-provided health plans could be asked to give up at least part of the longstanding tax exemption granted to such compensation.

 

It’s an idea likely to be met with howls of opposition if it makes it into the final version of health insurance legislation that President Barack Obama is pushing.

 

The idea of limiting the tax break for employer-provided insurance gained momentum last week, when Obama told senators that he’d consider it as one ingredient of the health insurance reform bill he wants Congress to pass by early August, when the Senate starts a one-month recess.

 

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who conveyed Obama’s willingness to consider the idea after a White House meeting Tuesday, has said the tax treatment of employer-provided health insurance ought to be made “fairer and more equitable for everyone.”

 

Will you end up with more taxable income?

While details of such an approach are still sketchy, it would likely involve employees paying tax on a percentage of their employer-provided health benefits. So if Congress decided that all such premiums in excess of $11,000 for family plans would be taxable income, and your company paid premiums worth $16,000 for your coverage, you’d have to pay taxes on $5,000.

 

Obama’s new openness to the idea stands in contrast to what he said six months ago as a presidential candidate, when he harshly criticized his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, for proposing that employer-provided benefits should be taxed.

 

Scolding McCain in their debate on Oct. 15, Obama said, “This is your plan, John. For the first time in history, you will be taxing people's health-care benefits.”

 

Obama also pledged last year not to raise taxes for families making less than $250,000, and a health benefits tax, depending on how it was structured, could run afoul of that promise.

 

The tax exemption on employer-provided health insurance, which dates to 1943, has already survived one attempt to limit it.

 

An echo of Ronald Reagan

In 1984, President Ronald Reagan floated the idea of requiring workers to pay taxes on employer contributions to their health insurance exceeding $2,100 a year. A Washington Post editorial the following year called the proposal “surprisingly lucrative yet eminently fair,” and speculated that “(it) might have helped hold down health care costs in the bargain.” But opposition, especially from labor unions, scuttled the proposal.

 

Obama’s new receptivity to the tax springs from the massive sums of money needed to pay for expanding health coverage to the uninsured.

 

Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors last week cited a figure of about $125 billion a year to insure the uninsured. But the president aims to do more than that. He also wants to subsidize the cost of coverage for lower-income people, subsidize COBRA coverage for those who lost their jobs and make other changes.

 

MIT economist Jonathan Gruber told the Finance Committee last month that curbing the health insurance tax break was “both the most natural source of financing for health care reform” and “one of the few that is clearly large enough to finance the subsidies needed for reform.”

 

According to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, the Treasury misses out on $226 billion a year because employer spending on health insurance isn’t counted as taxable income.

 

That figure dwarfs any other potential health-related revenue sources that have been identified as possibilities to help fund the health care expansion. Among them are a 3-cent-per-can tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates would raise about $50 billion over 10 years, or increasing taxes on beer, wine and distilled liquor which, under one CBO scenario, would raise $60 billion over 10 years.

 

A boon for upper-income people

According to an analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation, curbing the tax break for employer-provided health insurance would primarily affect the wealthy, who “receive the greatest tax benefit from the exclusion from income.” According to Gruber, “about three-quarters of these dollars go to the top half of the income distribution.”

 

But opposition to the proposal may be as big a problem for Obama as it was for Reagan.

 

A Kaiser Family Foundation survey in April that asked whether workers “with the most generous health care benefits” should be required to pay taxes on their coverage found 52 percent of respondents opposed to the idea. Of those who currently have employer-sponsored health insurance, 62 percent opposed it. (The poll of 1,203 adults had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.)

 

Will Americans bridle at loss of tax break?

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned Baucus in a letter last month that workers view employer-provided insurance “as duly-earned income” that should be “protected from the tax collector. This perception perhaps explains why the president was so successful in campaigning against Senator McCain’s health reform proposal — Americans generally do not support tax increases.”

 

The American Benefits Council, which represents principally Fortune 500 companies, is also opposed to the idea of limiting the tax break for employer-provided insurance.

 

“It is likely to lead to higher deductibles or co-pays, so there’s higher cost sharing” by workers, said the group’s health care spokesman, Paul Dennett. If Congress were to set the threshold for taxation of benefits at $13,000 for a family coverage plan, then employers “in order to help workers not face taxation, may offer coverage below that threshold. This is a course employers say they would likely take.”

 

Reduction in health benefits?

Economist Elise Gould at the liberal think-tank the Economic Policy Institute gave a similar assessment. Employers would see the threshold for taxation as what the government deemed the target level for health benefits, she said. “Employers will respond by reducing the comprehensiveness of benefits. They’ll likely target premiums to fall below the (threshold) value or just at that value, so employees don’t have to pay those additional taxes.”

 

Corporate America also fears that a limit on the tax break for health insurance would create an administrative nightmare, especially for large firms with employees in different states who face widely varying health care costs.

 

And opposition also remains strong among labor unions, which were big Obama backers in last year’s election.

 

Barbara Coufal, the assistant director of legislation at American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, said, “We don’t think we need to look inside the health care system to seek all the revenues we need for health care reform. Over the last 10 years, there have been a lot of tax breaks that have been given to the wealthy and to businesses. We maybe ought to look there and restore some equity.”

 

With momentum growing to enact some limit on the tax break for health benefits, increasing energy is being devoted to develop a workable taxation scheme.

 

Target upper-income Americans?

Gruber suggested the possibility of having a baseline so that only families with incomes above $125,000 per year would pay tax on their benefits. Gruber said this would still raise a lot of revenue: more than $40 billion a year if the cap were indexed to increases in the Consumer Price Index.

 

But in its letter to Baucus, the Chamber of Commerce said that such a proposal might “foster class warfare by (repealing the exclusion) … for certain income earners and not affecting others.”

 

Baucus, a 30-year Senate veteran, knows the politics of this issue are delicate. Limiting the tax break for employer-provided health benefits has “got to be done in a very sensitive way, to make sure the limits are high enough,” he was quoted as saying last Thursday by the Capitol Hill publication CQ Today.

 

Yet if Congress changes the law so that the tax bite ends up hitting only the wealthy, it might not raise enough revenue to help pay for health insurance overhaul.

 

“That’s the real dilemma,” said Dennett, of the American Benefits Council. “The lower the threshold is set, then the lower the revenue gain — and the scramble would be on to find other revenue sources.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On a personal note....I am getting tired of supporting the freeloaders.

[choco]

so what happens when all those (myself included) that are borderline broke have to keep paying for the "have-nots", actually become "have-nots"......sorry, but this fits the scope of parasitic infection.

[Westside Steve]

Here's the deal.

If most Americans want free health care for everybody it's gonna cost.

 

We aren't going to get it just by taxing the rich.

 

Now we'll see the demand (especially from the millions that don't have it because they're young and healthy and would rather spend the cash on more fun things) for Medicare for everybody" plummet.

 

Personally I pay a lot for mine right out of my self employed pocket.

 

If the Fed plan is better or less expensive I'll be glad to take it.

 

But two things.

 

I'd be really surprised if it's more than an empty promise.

I think Dems would rather have the issue than see how well it all works.

 

Two I think it'll be as costly and inefficient as any government run entity.

 

We'll see.

 

Prediction?

Drag their feet until the majority isn't "filibuster proof" and blame the opposition.

 

That's actually too bad.

A realistic plan would be benefitial in a lot of ways.

WSS

[Mr. T]

Myself i hate the fact that there are some who cannot afford healthcare, there are some programs that do help in this area.

 

You can always look into hospitals that are backed by different churches, I know in Nashville the Baptist church there helps out many at one of the hospitals that they help out financially.

 

 

And is it St. Marys in Cleveland there for those in need? Im not sure does anyone know?

[ballpeen]

No hospital can turn away a patient in need.

 

Many will try to transfer them to the "community" hospital.

 

The problem is the freeloaders know this and use ER care, the most expensive care in the hospital as their source of primary care.

 

Have a sniffle, head to the ER.

 

Too many freeloaders in this country sap the system.

 

 

[ballpeen]

Everybody can afford something.

 

I don't mind sacrificing as long as everybody is sacrificing something.

 

If you can pay for cable/satellite TV and or a cell phone, you should be required to pay at least the total of those.

 

You don't need either a cell phone or cable TV.....you do need insurance.

 

Any complaints with that??

[ballpeen]

Really Dan...it is about freeloaders.

 

We have tolerated them so long it rubs off on the people you mention.

 

I don't want anybody to be out of insurance....I really don't, and have been very charitable in my lifetime as you are right, I have worked hard and received some good breaks and reward along the way, and that doesn't escape me.

 

But for too long we have tolerated a freeloader class who takes advantage of everything they can....at your and my expense.

 

Day care shouldn't cost anything, or VERY little. If people on public support are able, they should be required to work daycares a few days a week.

 

Cleaning streets shouldn't cost taxpayer money. If you are on public support, you should be required to clean streets a few days a week.

 

Recreation departments shouldn't have to pay crews to take care of fields, people on public support should do that.

 

Face it...too many lazy people is the problem. I should NEVER see a help wanted sign at a burger joint....which I do.

 

At some point, everybody needs to contribute. Otherwise they are a drain.

 

For those that really can't...God bless them, I support them in pocket and soul.

[Guest mz.]

If you are on public support, you should be required to clean streets a few days a week.

 

Recreation departments shouldn't have to pay crews to take care of fields, people on public support should do that.

 

This is truly the most amazing thing I have ever read and do not want to kill the moment by adding my snarky comeback. Let's just enjoy it for awhile...

 

[Chicopee John]

This is truly the most amazing thing I have ever read and do not want to kill the moment by adding my snarky comeback. Let's just enjoy it for awhile...

 

I don't follow you, mz the pussy.

 

What, exactly, is wrong with this concept - really - I'd like your thoughts.

 

We once had a Governor in MA who instituted a concept called 'Workfare'. It caused quite a stir in the areas one would imagine but it actually turned out to be a workable program. His name is Mike Dukakis. He later became famous for jumping the shark (i.e. a US Tank).

 

If it is demeaning to do any job in order to support your family - I haven't come across one yet - how demeaning it must be to collect welfare checks generation after generation?

 

Let's keep it at the individual level - year after year.

 

[Guest mz.]

I don't follow you, mz the pussy.

 

What, exactly, is wrong with this concept - really - I'd like your thoughts.

 

Sorry, you can't afford to pay your bills right now, so it's indentured servant time? We're better than this.

 

[ballpeen]

Now, to dovetail with what I said before, there needs to be a realistic examination of poverty and the real level at which one fits in to that category.

 

It should never be at a point where it creates incentive to not work...which I think it is now. The ideal is you get it more beneficial to work at least 30 hours a week and receive public support than to not work at all.

 

If a single person isn't making say 18-20k per year, I say they are in a poverty, or close to poverty situation, and they shouldn't lose all assistance if they make 14k working at McDonalds.

 

There is a lot more we could do to lift people out of poverty and reduce the burden off the taxpayer.

 

If I was King of the world...all people would be required to have insurance. If you can't get it on your regular job or pay for it on your own, you have to take the government benefit.

 

You would have to pay the deductible when you used it, and you would have to give up 500 hours a year to community related projects.....basically 10 hours a week.

 

Everybody has 10 hours a week they can donate.

[ballpeen]

Sorry, you can't afford to pay your bills right now, so it's indentured servant time? We're better than this.

 

 

LOL....you really are clueless.

[Guest mz.]

LOL....you really are clueless.

 

I guess so.

 

[calfoxwc]

Well, we have the best health care system in the entire world, considering the size of our country's population.

 

There ARE problems that need to be resolved. Nobody wants anybody to go without health care, and having

 

folks on welfare go to emergency rooms for colds makes it tough on millions of Americans who go to the emergency

 

room for emergencies, however "minor" they may be, like a cut that needs stiches, etc..

 

When I was kid, I had major knee surgery. So, after surgery, I'm back in my room for a second day, and

 

I was moved back out into the hall, losing my room. Another kid, mother was on welfare, had shoulder surgery,

 

and took my room (shared with another patient).

 

Well, my physician shows up and asks me what's going on, and I tell him all I know.

 

Turns out, that I was doing pretty well after surgery, and the loudmouth and nasty welfare mother

 

threatened to sue the hospital via the NAACP if her son didn't get a room immediately across from the nurses' station.

 

So, the nurses had to choose between me and another kid, who was in pretty bad shape after surgery after

 

getting hit by a car while riding his motor scooter.

 

So, my expert physician, who was head of the board of that dept, raised hell, I put put right back into

 

my room and there was a lot of the nasty loudmouth mother yelling, then my physician told her to "shut up and listen"

 

and then she didn't say a word, it got all quiet, the kid got a room toward the end of the hall only after another

 

patient got discharged that morning.

 

The "entitlement crowd" is out of control.

 

The people that need help with med coverage should get help. But changing our entire system to a new

 

GOV system is so ridiculous I can't believe anybody supports that.

 

And fining the people who don't get the new health care when they can't afford health care in the first place,

 

I don't think that's anything that makes sense, either.

 

But I remember many years ago, a mother with three small children, all boys, who didn't work and got a lot of

 

help paying her utilities, clothes for the kids, school supplies, doctor visits......

 

Well, my best friend and I went over to fix her car

 

one day, gave it a nice tuneup, repaired it with church donations, including ours...

 

and went up to give her back her keys, as two other church ladies brought dinner over. The mother didn't

 

have money for food to properly feed her boys.

 

Then, we noticed that they had a big, beautiful projection tv and a fancy new stereo, cable television,

 

junk food and beer in the kitchen...

 

yeah. That's the bad side of helping everybody without checking to make sure they are really being helped,

 

or just subsidizing sloth.

 

People who advocate these fix all programs don't seem to worry about fraud and waste and encouraging

 

irresponsibility.

 

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a LEGIT solution to deserving Americans who need the help

 

to get health care coverage.

 

It had BETTER also be about freeloaders, or the problem is fiscally impossible to fix.

[osusev]

I know I have harped on this before... but I think the Obama admin and government/society in general have the wrong focus.

 

Cost is defined by what? Its the COSTS we need to look at before we can find a comprehensive way to address our countries needs.

 

It is logical that what you pay goes directly to those who are servicing those needs, but healthcare funds do not work that way. They are hijacked by a middle paper pushing industry who is a FOR PROFIT industry that has to justify their own existance.

 

Drug costs are escalating out of control and they are spending tons of money on advertising to a consumer base that is not qualified to understand the drugs in the first place.

 

The concept of "insurance" is what is wrong in the first place, if it was a direct allocation toward the healthcare providers not the middle financial paper pushing industry this is a completely solvable problem.

 

The insurance/and pharmaceutical industries LOVE this misdirection of the problem because they get to continue causing it in the first place and profit immensly.

 

You guys on the right and the left are correct really. EVERYONE should contribute SOMETHING toward the Health care System NOT the insurance/drug industries.

[Westside Steve]

I know I have harped on this before... but I think the Obama admin and government/society in general have the wrong focus.

 

Probably/

 

Drug costs are escalating out of control and they are spending tons of money on advertising to a consumer base that is not qualified to understand the drugs in the first place.

 

Then again what do you propose?

Forcing researchers to come up with the wonder drugs we demand at gunpoint?

 

The concept of "insurance" is what is wrong in the first place, if it was a direct allocation toward the healthcare providers not the middle financial paper pushing industry this is a completely solvable problem.

 

You want auto insurance eliminated as well?

Not that I'm saying the health industry doesn't need an overhaul.

 

The insurance/and pharmaceutical industries LOVE this misdirection of the problem because they get to continue causing it in the first place and profit immensly.

 

We all like to profit.

Except you I guess....

 

You guys on the right and the left are correct really. EVERYONE should contribute SOMETHING toward the Health care System NOT the insurance/drug industries.

 

Havana Gewneral or the Cleveland Clinic.

Hmmmmmmm

WSS

 

[ballpeen]

I find myself in between mz the pussy and Peen and somewhere in that murky middle we should be able to come up with something to protect everyone.

Peen is right,many without coverage have no choice but to use a hospitals emergency room as there family doctor and that isnt only a problem but grossly expensive to those of us who have coverage not to mention the government who then passes on that bill to all of us ,so in affect we are already supporting healthcare for everyone ,just not in the best wayfor the patient or the country.

 

 

As I said, if the people on the public dole were required to work at some function that is currently being done by public workers, we would eliminate the strain on local and state governments.

 

I am not talking slave camps or anything of the sort. Provide government health care to those who need it. In return, they provide a service for the public. They work the streets, support the day cares and nursing homes. Have them work as crossing guards or stand in schools to help support the SRO in many of the schools. There is a lot of untapped labor that is there and lot's of taxpayer money is wasted by not getting a little something in return.

 

The streets of Cleveland and any city are dirty. If you had crews supervised by regular workers supported by a few hundred people a day working to clean it up, our cities would look pretty darn nice.

 

Raise the poverty threshold to where people wont be motivated to not hold a legit job. Once in a job, most people want to excel.

 

The middle is this Dan..the republicans need to be more willing to share some of the pie, and the dems need to quit trying to hold people in poverty by encouraging lazy behavior.

 

If we quit giving stuff to people, and make them earn it, and then keep it by not taxing their ass so heavily, and quit being stingy and had a realistic attitude on what it really takes for people to live and not rule people out of some public assistance because they make $12,000, we might actually get someplace.

 

The only way...I will repeat...THE ONLY WAY for people to find the middle ground is to focus on themself and not focus so much on the other guy. If you can't find the faults in your own view, you aren't going to agree on anything.

[Kosar_For_President]

The only way...I will repeat...THE ONLY WAY for people to find the middle ground is to focus on themself and not focus so much on the other guy. If you can't find the faults in your own view, you aren't going to agree on anything.

 

I can't believe I am saying this, but I agree with you here on this statement Peen. There really is no middle ground in society today. Those who bitch and whine about a system that they don't contribute to? Really? I always ask them "what does the world owe you asshole".

 

On a side note, and I think you did state this. There are people who do need assistance. I believe I have said before my father is a vet on disability. Yes we had food stamps and the whole 9 yards. But their are people who truly need it and I know you are not talking about them. Coming from a poor ass family and 2 out of 4 kids gets Masters degrees; that is more proof that anyone has every opportunity to succeed and not act like the world owes them something.

 

[choco]

peen's got the right idea.....sorry mz the pussy, but these people are getting FREE money.....they haven't done anything but xxxx up.....made bad decisions.....whatever.

 

why not get something in return for our investment? a little hard work never hurt anyone, unless they're too fat to walk. perhaps if these people realized that cleaning streets and jiz-booths for a few hundred in handouts is worth it, then more power to 'em. at least we get a service in exchange for OUR money. perhaps others will desire more, and thus have the work ethic to remove ass from couch and get a fricking job, or education.

 

it the old 'give a fish, teach to fish' adage......giving people money doesn't teach them anything but how to be dependant on someone else.....they need skills, not handouts.

[Westside Steve]

What the Obama team overlooks in the "From each according to his ability; To each according to his need" is the first half.

Eveyone has something they can contribute for their upkeep.

 

WSS

[Chicopee John]

Sorry, you can't afford to pay your bills right now, so it's indentured servant time? We're better than this.

 

 

Unless I am wrong - imagine that! - we aren't talking about people recently removed from employment (collecting assistance).

 

We are talking about welfare recipients.

 

I don't believe anybody working any job in order to pay bills is an indentured servant. On the contrary, Mike, I give them 100% of my respect.

 

We are not talking about attaching these people to balls and chains. We are talking about them providing public service for public funds.

 

Again, the intent is for this to be a temporary, not permanent, situation.

 

[Guest mz.]

We're talking about both circumstances, John. Or at least I am.

 

The difference here is I generally don't see folks as freeloaders just because they're on welfare. I've had this argument with Inspecta before if you recall. I agree that there will always be people who are lazy and cheating the system, but I think the good we do for the overwhelming majority of poor folks who aren't lazy more than makes up for the few who cheat the system. I guess the rest of you think way more people wish to freeload than I think do.

[Chicopee John]

We're talking about both circumstances, John. Or at least I am.

 

The difference here is I generally don't see folks as freeloaders just because they're on welfare. I've had this argument with Inspecta before if you recall. I agree that there will always be people who are lazy and cheating the system, but I think the good we do for the overwhelming majority of poor folks who aren't lazy more than makes up for the few who cheat the system. I guess the rest of you think way more people wish to freeload than I think do.

 

 

I am not anti-welfare. I am against abuse.

 

I am not looking for anything with this, but it is the truth.

 

My mother's father died in his 30's.

 

My mother's mother was left with 7 children - one hydro-cephalic and blind.

 

My mother's youngest sister is the only one in their family ever to graduate from High School. My Mom made it to 8th grade.

 

The point is that they needed and accepted welfare. As soon as they could earn money, they quit school and went to work.

 

All siblings ended up with good, albeit non-professional jobs and earned pensions. For the most part, all of them had children who attended and graduated from college and have good jobs - I might be the exception to the rule.

 

If it weren't for welfare, I wouldn't be here right now.

 

IMHO, the problem goes to work ethic, self-pride, and civic duty.

 

[choco]

the apparently is a disconnect on the number of "lazy" welfare recipients....

 

clarion country PA is a majority welfare folk.....my old school district (Union Joint HS) has 83% lunch assistance to children....roughly 60% on welfare.

 

guess who i see at the bar, night in night out? guess who's children are wearing the same clothes as last year (my moms a teacher)? guess who's children are malnourished.....dirty....and can barely speak english?

 

i see people everyday skirting the system......i've personally met one that receiver welfare and worked her way off the roles.

 

 

 

my girl attended the ICM campus in Pitt here last year......out of the 18 people in her class, 10 were on assistance that required they be enrolled in a secondary education program. they attended school once a week to fulfill the assistance agreement, gloating how easy it is to abuse the system. same people that talked on their phones during class.....disrupting everyone in the process. tuesday thru friday, they never showed.

 

watch judge judy some time......its hilarious to see just how stupid some people are....

 

- "that taxpayer money is supposed to be used to feed and cloth your children".

 

-'i liked (as in like-did) the phone mam'.

 

 

[Guest mz.]

watch judge judy some time......its hilarious to see just how stupid some people are....

 

Of course it's funny. It's one reason why reality TV is so great...you get to laugh at the dumb. (It's also what makes public forums fun too!)

 

But my personal feelings on the subject dictate that I'd rather help the folks that need the help while acknowledging there are some who cheat the system rather than help nobody and let good people fall by the wayside. Trust me, if there was a way to limit or kill the corruption in the system I'd be all for it, but nobody's proposed such an idea yet.

 

[choco]

no need to punish some for the deeds of others....i do agree. as a safety net, im all for it. as a way of life....i have a problem.

 

only need some reform.....if you want public assistance, be prepared to help the public in return. its giving away money for absolutely nothing in return that burns me. and the clause of more money per kid....it just turns poor families into baby factories, who will likely (but not necessarily) end up in jail.

[ballpeen]

The difference here is I generally don't see folks as freeloaders just because they're on welfare.

 

In the broadest sense, i agree, but with respect, I disagree with the large majority.

 

They are taking advantage of the system....BUT...I really can't blame them. If they go out and work at say Wendys, they might make enough to force them to lose benefits, which in reality means working costs them more money that if they sit on the porch and do nothing.

 

As I said earlier, I would be for raising the threshold of what people can earn and not lose public support. Encourage people to work. Maybe even give workers MORE in public support than those who can work and don't.......note...i am not talking about the disabled person....heck...even downs people work sorting recyclables and such...I see them clearing tables at McDonalds...shoot...pay those angles 50K a year as far as I am concerned.....but there are just way to many flat out lazy bums who really have nothing but their hand out.

 

I think I have it with a earlier comment...pay them more if they in fact hold a job. That means they have to listen to people, show up on time and sober, deal with people and show some general responsibility...not a bad idea really...give business a tax credit for hiring these folks.....not sure if TJTC is still in effect...been out of the loop for a while.

 

There is a whole class of people who saw dad drinking beer on the corner all day and mom sitting on her thunder thighs all day eating chips and never learned you have to work if you want real reward.

If that is what you were raised on, you know no different, so doing the same thing becomes normal.

 

Reward those who work....don't penalize them. Hold a minimum wage job, you get more than the person who sits around....plus you get the pay.

 

Work it where people aren't in poverty either because they work and receive another 10k a year in benefit for food and housing, or are truly disabled and unable to work.. or sit around and yes, you are a poor MF.

[ballpeen]

I can't believe I am saying this, but I agree with you here on this statement Peen.

 

Thanks!

 

Really man, I know I sometimes come across as a stick in the mud, but really, in real life there are at least a few who think I am a pretty sharp guy, and spent my adult life in a position that required I be fair and unbiased.

 

I am not quite the cantankerous old fart some might think.

 

Have a serious discussion, I will hang all day. Start the smack talk, I skim over, make a snide remark, and move on.