Entitlement America And The High Cost Of "Free"

Tyler Durden's picture

Almost three years ago we first highlighted the real math behind the surging entitlement class that America has become. So why does a large portion of the population choose not to work when there are many jobs available? The answer is simple. If you can receive 2-3 times as much money from unemployment, disability, and/or welfare benefits (subsidized housing, food stamps, free cellphones, etc.) as you can from a temporary or part-time job, and live a life of leisure, why work? This is the ugly reality we illustrated just six months ago and the situation - amid what is apparently called a 'recovery' remains a depressingly real sign of the times. The political allure of free is so strong that an alarming number of people choose to become wards of the entitlement/welfare state rather than captain their own destiny. Indeed, while many are 'proud', 49% of American households now receive one or more government transfer benefits amounting to 18% of all personal income and a burden of $7,400 for every American - seemingly threatening the supposed self-reliance that has long characterized the American national psyche.

 

Via the Ludwig von Mises Institute,

Why does a large portion of the population choose not to work when there are many jobs available? The answer is simple. If you can receive 2-3 times as much money from unemployment, disability, and/or welfare benefits (subsidized housing, food stamps, free cellphones, etc.) as you can from a temporary or part-time job, and live a life of leisure, why work? In 2011, the U.S. government spent over $800 billion this “welfare,” exceeding expenditures on Social Security or Medicare.

In the Denver arena where Mr. Obama gave his DNC 2008 acceptance speech, a woman in the audience became overwhelmed by the speech and said that she no longer needed to worry if she could make her car or mortgage payments because he would take care of it for her. In Cleveland, a woman claimed that she was going to vote for President Obama again because he gave her a free cellphone (along with a litany of other entitlement giveaways). Before you growl, you should know that the free cellphone program was instated by President Bush in 2008 through the FCC’s Universal Service Fund. Fees for these “free” cellphones are paid by all telecommunications service providers out of the revenue received from their paying customers. Despite the political rhetoric over the past half century, entitlements were actually highest during Republican administrations. The political allure of free is bi-partisan.

The political allure of free is so strong that an alarming number of people choose to become wards of the entitlement/welfare state rather than captain their own destiny. Economist Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute believes that Americans have become a nation of takers, threatening the self-reliance that has long characterized our national psyche. Eberstadt (2012, p. 4) presents data showing that entitlement payments to Americans, since 1960, have risen annually by 9.5 percent. He argues that over the past 50 years the ever-increasing array of transfer payments to Americans have risen 727 percent. In 2010 such payments alone totalled $2.3 trillion with Social Security (for old age and disability) accounting for 31 percent, Medicare 24 percent, Medicaid 18 percent, Income Maintenance 12 percent, other giveaways (free cell-phones, support for a broken education system, housing, the arts, etc.) 8 percent, and Unemployment Insurance 6 percent (Eberstadt 2012, C1-2). This has resulted in 49 percent of American households receiving one or more government transfer benefits (Eberstadt 2013); this amounts to 18 percent of all personal income and a burden of $7,400 for every American.

 

The Balance Sheet on Government Giveaways

Our economic analysis shows that retirees who worked for 40 years and then live 20 years past retirement will receive more than twice what they, and their employers, contributed over their lifetime of working. Only retirees who survive a decade or less after their retirement do not take more out of Social Security than they contributed. Most people will agree that the retirees should receive his/her Social Security benefits at retirement. But with people living longer, who will pay for all the additional benefits now promised? Most people who have not done their homework (including Congress) fail to realize that the numbers for Medicare benefits exceed those for Social Security. Since 1965, Medicare required less than a 3 percent contribution from a worker’s gross wages, yet most people receive over $250,000 in medical benefits before reaching the age of 74, assuming no catastrophic illness. You can do the math on your own wages, assuming a lifetime salary of $100,000 per year for all 40 working years, a worker will have paid in only $120,000 into the Medicare system. Congress, after agreeing to take care of everyone after retirement for the rest of their lives, has broken a sacred trust and used incoming contributions to fund other government expenditures, instead of letting the contributions build over the past 50 years.

 

The Political Allure of Free Runs Parallel with Tough Economic Times

The U.S. Census data show that in 2000 the percentage of Americans existing at or below the poverty level was 11.3 percent or 31.1 million people. The 2010 census showed a 75 percent increase in reported poverty by Americans rising to 15.1 percent or 46.2 million people from the previous census. As with most government statistics, there is ample room for politicized error. For example, when people get laid off from work, there is reason to believe that many join the underground economy and do not report their income. Rahn (2009) reports that 26.5 million households are either unbanked or underbanked (from FDIC data) and that while the economy may be improving slightly, the growth in the underground economy should be decreasing but isn’t.

Another contributing factor is a measure called labor force participation. It is the total work force that includes people working and those actively looking for work as a percent of the noninstitutionalized population. The Reason Foundation’s Randazzo (2012) points to a circularity problem—when the unemployment rate goes down the labor force participation rate should rise. After the recession ended in 2009, both rates are tracking in the same direction—the labor force participation rate was 64.9 percent, the lowest since 1981and the unemployment rate was 10 percent. In 2012 the labor participation rate had dropped to 63.4 percent and the unemployment rate also dropped to 7.8 percent. Randazzo suggests this is because participation in the labor force has been declining for over a decade. Despite President Obama’s recent crowing about jobs, the drop in unemployment has factually less to do with the creation of real jobs than with the fact that more Americans are dropping out of the workforce for the allure of free things from their government. Randazzo believes lower workforce participation will be the labor norm of the future.

Why work if you can’t find a comparable job to what you had before you were laid off and the government will give you free living expenses? We have analyzed what a single parent with three children is eligible to receive from the state and federal governments in a given year, working a part time job at minimum wage living in Florida (a relatively benefit-frugal state). Free and subsidized benefits include: housing, welfare, utilities, telephone, school breakfast and lunches, child care, medical care, food stamps, commissary food, prescription and non-prescription medications, education, education testing, and refundable tax credits. All of these benefits are in excess of $47,000 per year, exceeding the poverty level in Florida by 200 percent.

Researchers at the National Bureau of Economic Research cite studies suggesting that in difficult economic times approximately 30-40 percent of those applying for disability would return to the workforce if the economy were better and disability were not an available option (Autor and Duggan 2006, p. 19).

 

Choosing Disability over Work

Many people add to their free government benefits through working in the underground economy and pay taxes on none of it.

Others choose another free government benefit. Since mid-2010 (the date when millions of U.S. citizens exhausted their 99 weeks of unemployment insurance) the number of workers on Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits rose by 22 percent, an increase of 2.2 million people.

Workers with disability now get nearly a 20 percent chunk of the total Social Security benefits budget and the number has increased (Kowalski 2012). Kowalski refers to a government study that shows that 99 percent of people who have been granted SSDI benefits remain on this entitlement the rest of their lives. Economists David Autor and Mark Duggan (2006) argue that the spiral in SSDI claims by the non-elderly adult population is the result of three main factors: (1) Congress has dropped the threshold for receiving disability benefits (inability to function in a work-like setting); (2) Congress has increased the level of benefits for recipients giving people more incentive to apply. (3) Congress increased the number of people in the workforce covered by SSDI (Autor and Duggan 2006, p. 8-11). The allure of free has made the political class very proud of its accomplishments in creating a welfare-dependent state.

When government programs are seemingly free, recipients tend to use them more. Medicare is a perfect example, where pharmaceutical and diagnostic tests multiply with the change in new benefits (Pauley 2004). Research shows that even when controlling for age and medical condition, if medical care is a bargain, people on Medicare as opposed to people on private insurance utilize 50 percent more care (Matthews and Littow 2011). They point to the fact that especially when Medicare patients have supplemental care in the private sector, their out-of-pocket expense nears zero, encouraging even more utilization. They conclude: “Since private insurers are much better at controlling utilization and reducing fraud, why not turn to the private sector to resolve Medicare’s excessive utilization?” (p. A16)

Mises (1990) analyzed this double-edged sword of government dependency and the cost to human value.

Today, George Gilder (2012) echoes this risk by pointing out that 70 percent of government discretionary spending devalues human life by paying people to be disabled, sick, reproduce, be unemployed, unmarried, retired, poor, homeless, hapless, or drugged.

He believes these supposed problem-solving programs accomplish nothing beyond expanding themselves by spreading dependence and tragic waste and saying: “Reforming them [the first rule of bureaucracy (Pettegrew and Vance 2012)] is all upside.”

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
max2205's picture

Should work fine till crack, meth, pot , rent double....THEN WHAT!

NoDebt's picture

Then they'll double the benefit.

Tijuana Donkey Show's picture

Something cheep and new. Soma?

Parrotile's picture

For "CHEEP CHEEP" at 120dB you can't beat an excited Sun Conure! (Yes, they ARE that loud!)

astroloungers's picture

There is no free lunch.........only happy hour

RaceToTheBottom's picture

Man can survive for quite some time on chicken wings...

One of these is not like the others..'s picture

Prat! You can't live a proper life on meth and crack. Even pot is quite debilitating.

As for rent, well it will only double when the market can stand it.

The basic balancing force exists that if you make housing completely unobtainable for the people at the bottom of the ladder, by buying up all teh property and refusing to rent it at an affordabel cost, then we bums will eventually come and burn or occupy your houses, and the rich know it, so there will always be affordable housing. (The difficult trick to pull off I found was to find my cheap housing somewhere that wasn't a war zone).

And you really shouldn't end a sentance that asks a question with just an exclamation mark, or make facile assumptions about peoples lifestyles on "fightclub" unless you enjoy the feeling of being "owned".

There again, isn't that what this is all about, people waking up to the fact that their failure to excercise a bit of due diligence has allowed them to be almost totally owned, by a buch of psychopathic gits?

Bangin7GramRocks's picture

"Keep your government hands off my Medicare!" Most of you are probably sucking the gubmint tit too.

FEDbuster's picture

Went to some TEA Party events (vast majority of attendees were over 60), and none of them were for "means testing" for SS or Medicare.  Cut all other spending, but don't mess with our .gov benefits.  All you heard was "we paid in".  

The whole system has to collapse hard, then we will see what the reset is like.  It is the only way, the gene pool needs a shock treatment.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Social Security was designed as an enforced savings program-- NOT welfare. "Means testing" your own savings is bullshit. Score one for the tea party guys.

However, as far as Medicare is concerned-- now that's welfare.

Promethus's picture

SS was SOLD enforced savings program. It has turned into welfare.

Oldwood's picture

I can't speak for others but I'm still FORCED to pay and they want to take the income limits off at the same time they want to means test benefits. Just more redistribution and PROOF that anything that government promises beyond death and taxes is a LIE.

merizobeach's picture

You're not forced.  You might feel coerced, but you aren't.  You voluntarily pay in, supporting the wars and enabling the tyranny.

Harbanger's picture

"You're not forced.  You might feel coerced, but you aren't."

I love people like you.  Do something about it and then post something from prison so we can look to you for courage.

One of these is not like the others..'s picture

Do it right and you don't HAVE to go to prison.

You DO have to change your way of life.

And that my friend takes REAL courage and some skill.

Any fool can go to jail.

PT's picture

One of these ... re:"Do it right and you don't have to ..."

Well don't just stand there boy.  Spill the beanz.  Enlighten us.   Assertions are three cents to the dozen and still six dollars each over-priced.  You come to the spotlight, take a bow and expect us to applaud?  You forgot to put on the show!

Prisoners_dilemna's picture

"i know a guy", he's 31.
Quit his fortune 500 job making $24, after he became debt free and stacked PMs.
Signed up for state bennies.
Planted a garden.
Hunts.
Gets $400 a month from the VA.
Mines bitcoins.
Works as a grease hood cleaner and winery tasting staff for $10 under the table.
Babysits dogs and barters for needed items ie. grass seed, wine, vehicle use.
Doesn't have a vehicle on the road. Rides his bike instead and borrows cars.
Lives frugally, refuses to drink at bars etc.
Doesn't pay for television.

Has a phone for internet. Uses foxfi for free wifi, can now get internet on his computer.
The list goes on but my point is... he has made some drastic lifestyle changes.
He also claims to be the happiest he's ever been because he doesnt have to file by april whenever. He's starving the beast. And he's getting a free lunch, while working under the table.

Plays softball on Sundays. Runs his dogs daily. And has plenty of time to read ZH. Also has plenty of time for DIY projects.

One of these is not like the others..'s picture

Wow, I touched a nerve there it seems.

The post below by pretty much covers what I have learned and practise on a daily basis. Plus I do work to identify and remove "evil" from my life.

I absolutely assert that you can live comfortably and within the law by simply minimising your outgoings to match your income. Make the overall balance slightly positive and you can even grow your worldly empire. 

I have managed to retain the use of my Jaguar, and slightly increase my holding of silver by simply reducing my outgoings to a bare minimum and refusing to make ANY form of financial commitment, direct debit etc. Because my cash turnover is so low, I qualify for all state benefits, but becuase I am handy and smart and when I am in the right mood useful, I can easily ignore the trap of state benefits, and that frees me to work when and where I wish. Currently casual income is very hard to obtain, so things are a bit tight, but my extremely low cash turnover combines with some sensible (in percentage terms) cash reserves, easy access to short term personal credit means I am preety fireproof, financially and legally speaking.

I'll admit, I have no property, I don't get to give as much as I would like to good causes, adn I knwo that by many of your expressed standards, I am a "bum".

I'd reply that "bum" or not, I have worked damn hard to get where I am, it's working for me, and the people around me and all my transactions are honest and mutually beneficial. I go without a few things admittedly, and sometimes that hurts, but I am living a real life, with almost zero accountability, and I can't believe how much reducing my overall handling of money has improved my life.

It's counter-intuitive, I know, and I claim no credit for being clever, is why I come here to learn from the smarter and better informed posters would you believe? But right now, in this political economic climate, disconnecting myself from the madness out there and living a small life seems like and certainly feels like the sensible option.

Realising the basic truth that what ones heart desires is not money, but the things money can buy, and that every time you handle money you have to pay a tithe and account for your activity to a bunch of greedy psychopathic bastards, kinda forced me to shift my effort into finding out how to acquire what I need directly, reducing the involvement of money to an absolute minimum, and then only in it's cash form has saved me an incredible amount of time money and effort.

IF I am proven wrong, or circumstances change I shall adapt my strategy, but the original assertion that I made that you can starve the beast, and have a comfortable life without going to prison or being untrue to yourself or your god holds true. At least for me.

However, in this climate I have found that spreading the word, does seem to piss people off, it's a BIG mental adjustment I had to make, and if your life is working well and you are happy with your lot, please treat everything I have to say as of no relevance.

All I am saying is that there are other games to play in life apart from "monopoly".  Still can't see why I got so many down arrows. Hope the explanation is of value and use to someone.

Sorry for the breach in etiquette, I forgot this is fight club for a bit there, and should have stuck around to take on any challengers...

merizobeach's picture

Well, there's a few thick folks here today.  I'll say it for the hard of hearing:

YOU CHOOSE TO PAY IN TO THE WAR MACHINE, and you are a material and ideological supporter of the wars that result.  Have some moral responsibility for yourselves.  And some other dumb fuck tells me to grow up; classic.

MagicHandPuppet's picture

And plantation slaves were not 'forced' to work for their masters either by your attempt at logic. Grow up.

merizobeach's picture

From your tone, it sounds like you're the slave.  Good luck with that.

CynicLaureate's picture

It matters not what the government told people; they were forced to pay under threat of imprisonment and confiscation, anyway.

Too late now; if you don't want your ox gored, vote early and often: the Chicago Way!

 

Lost My Shorts's picture

Actually, I think Social Security was originally sold as a social insurance program (though right-wingers hate the concept with such passion that you refuse to even understand what that is.)

Social insurance works like this:  at a young age, no one in the working class knows who will die young (and never need a pension) and who will live to 100 (but starve to death well before that without a pension.)  So they all "agree" or get required to pay into a social insurance fund.  Those who drop dead at 64 lose out completely.  Those who live to 100 dont' starve to death.  It was not exactly intended a free-stuff program.  It was actually popular with the rich, because the rich because if the working class were not paying into social insurance, the rich might be arm-twisted into supporting all the oldsters who would otherwise starve to death.

It's true that means testing and very high limits on taxed wages give the program an element of redistribution of income (exactly what the rich were trying to avoid with Social Security).  Yes, the rich hate that.

The program also had a well-known element of actuarial fantasy, where it was clear starting in the '70s that benefits would be worth a lot more than what people were paying in.  (If it were a private insurance company, SS would have been shut down by regulators; but as a politically popular handout to voters, it lumbers on.)  The current generation of retirees should give up some of their benefits because what they paid in (even counting the unlucky ones who died young) was too small to justify their benefits.  The current generation of retirees knows this full well, but in America, everyone is selfish (including me !!)

Harbanger's picture

If you've known any selfish people in your life, you'd know that they never lived or died in peace.

Henry Hub's picture

***The current generation of retirees should give up some of their benefits...***

Not quite, If you live to be 100 you get more that you paid in. If you die at 68 you've paid in more than you get. If you die before 65 you've payed in a lot, and get nothing. That's how insurance works. Think of it like house insurance. If you're house never burns down, you've paid a lot and get nothing.

swiss chick's picture

Finally someone who says something intelligent...

Bobbyrib's picture

Right, but housing insurance will actually pay if you need it. People below the age of fifty would be fools to think they will receive benefits for something they have paid into their entire working lives. SS willl be bankrupt before my generation can even collect. Also if you don't have a mortgage, are you still forced to buy housing insurance? Knowing what I know now I would much rather count on a private company to manage its finances and be able to pay out its insurcance than the corrupt politicians looting the lower classes and small business owners dry. It's not entirely the same. If I don't own a house (which is true), I am not forced to have housing insurance. Yet if I work, I have to pay SS tax.

Bangin7GramRocks's picture

A private company like say.....AIG. Bullshit! The government directly and indirectly supports all the "private" insurance companies. And if you hate paying for lazy government workers who earn six figures, what do you think about the 400 million that Joseph Cassano stole?

graspAU's picture

 

In 1953, a subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee conducted hearings for the express purpose of settling the question of whether social security was contractual in nature; see Hearings of November 27, 1953 entitled "The Legal Status of OASI Benefits," (Part 6). The witness at the hearing was Dr. Arthur J. Altmeyer, who held several offices in the Roosevelt administration. He was a member of the first Social Security Board, and by 1946 became the Social Security Commissioner, retiring in 1953. During this hearing, various parties stated that social security was not a contract:

At page 918:

"Mr. Altmeyer: * * * There is no individual contract between the beneficiary and the Government.

"Mr. Dingell: Congress knew that, did it not?

"Mr. Altmeyer: Yes, of course. I am sure it did.

* * *

"Chairman Curtis: The individual * * * has no contract? Is that your position?

"Mr. Altmeyer: That is right.

"Chairman Curtis: And he has no insurance contract?

"Mr. Altmeyer: That is right."

At page 937:

"Chairman Curtis: We came to an agreement on one of our major premises, that this was no insurance contract, and the words did not come from me. They were volunteered by Mr. Altmeyer."

At page 968:

"Mr. Winn: * * * Mr. Altmeyer, there being no contractual obligation between the Government and the worker, it follows, does it not, that the benefit payments under title II of the Social Security Act are merely statutory benefits which Congress may withdraw or alter at any time?"

At page 969:

"Mr. Winn (reading): ‘These are gratuities, not based on contract * * *. Moreover, the act creates no contractual obligation with respect to the payment of benefits. This Court has pointed out the difference between insurance which creates vested rights, and pensions and other gratuities, involving no contractual obligations, in Lynch v. United States, (292 U.S. 571, 576-577)."

At page 994:

"Mr. Altmeyer: I have answered your question, sir. If you will refer to section 1101, you will find, as you read into the record, that there are no vested rights, that Congress may create different rights * * *."

At page 996:

"Mr. Winn: We have also established that there is no insurance contract between the Government and the worker within a covered wage whereby the rights and obligations of a party are set; that is correct, is it not?

"Mr. Altmeyer: No. You did not establish that. That has been self-evident since the law was passed in 1935."

At pages 1013-14 (the Chair's concluding remarks):

"Chairman Curtis: Mr. Altmeyer, it is apparent that the people of the country have no insurance contract. That does not mean that I do not want to do my full part to do justice to them and to carry out and make good on the moral commitment that has been made to them. Yet, notwithstanding the fact that they had no insurance contract, it remains true that the agency under your direction repeatedly in public statements, by pamphlets, radio addresses, and by other means, told the people of the country that they had insurance. I think a number of people were misled by that."

 

graspAU's picture

The Supreme Court and the evolution of Social Security

The Supreme Court has established that no one has any legal right to Social Security benefits. The Court decided, in Flemming v. Nestor (1960), that "entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right". In that case, Ephram Nestor, a Bulgarian immigrant to the United States who made contributions for covered wages for the statutorily required "quarters of coverage" was nonetheless denied benefits after being deported in 1956 for being a member of the Communist party.

The case specifically held:

2. A person covered by the Social Security Act has not such a right in old-age benefit payments as would make every defeasance of "accrued" interests violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 608–611. (a) The noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits are based on his contractual premium payments. Pp. 608–610. (b) To engraft upon the Social Security System a concept of "accrued property rights" would deprive it of the flexibility and [363 U.S. 603, 604] boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands and which Congress probably had in mind when it expressly reserved the right to alter, amend or repeal any provision of the Act. Pp. 610–611. 3. Section 202 (n) of the Act cannot be condemned as so lacking in rational justification as to offend due process. Pp. 611–612. 4. Termination of appellee's benefits under 202 (n) does not amount to punishing him without a trial, in violation of Art. III, 2, cl. 3, of the Constitution or the Sixth Amendment; nor is 202 (n) a bill of attainder or ex post facto law, since its purpose is not punitive. Pp. 612–621.[65]

marathonman's picture

As I understand it, SS was a way to pull forward future spending into today.  Because SS got your back, you didn't have to worry about the future so much so you could spend more today and not save as much for tomorrow.  Like most government programs it was a Trojan horse that redistributes money to DC.  The Fed has to finance the unsustainable and create about 10% real inflation to pay for it all.  More Ponzinomics.

Bobbyrib's picture

We'll see how much that works out for the Boomers that saved nothing for retirement.

HardAssets's picture

Soc Sec and everything else is designed to screw you over. Its also designed by politicians to boost their chances in the next election. They don't give a damned about the consequences to you, they'll be long gone by then.

The concept of 'welfare' is bullshit.  They stole 97% of the value of peoples earnings and savings. If it hadnt been stolen, people wouldnt need to beg for a few crumbs back.

They frame the argument, and people fall for it.

(Kinda like 'gun control' after SandyHook, when youre more likely to be struck by lightning than be a victim of a mass shooting.)

Maos Dog's picture

You are notmally spot on in your comments, however you got this one wrong, 

MedicAID is pure welfare - This is the program that fixes the gangbangers for free get when they shoot each other in the ghetto

MediCARE is a paid in program from a lifetime of additional tax withholdings to pay for your medical care when you are old.

Important diffetence!!!!

 

Lost My Shorts's picture

It's a relative thing.  Medicare is partly funded by tax withholdings, but it's very clear that the trust fund will go bust soon in a big way because the amount paid in was not nearly enough to cover the cost of benefits people want.  Perhaps Medicare is 30% paid-in social insurance, and 70% welfare.  That is just a guess.

Bobbyrib's picture

The amount subtracted (taxed) for Medicare was minimal. LMS is correct. It is not enough to fund the program. Bust it goes..

Sorynn's picture

That was never true.  It has been a documented ponzi scheme since the Supreme Court case that requested segregated funds was lost.

Umh's picture

About Medicare. My former employer will let me stay in the group insurance plan with me paying the full premium until I turn 65. Guess where that leaves me?

ClassicalLib17's picture

Fedbuster,  you're a fucking liar.

natty light's picture

"we paid in "

OK : you will get what you put in [adjusted for inflation, and just to be generous, we will add interest accrued per the 10-year] and then that's it; you can pay for your own private insurance with high-deductible because you didn't  pay but a small part of that. 

Anusocracy's picture

Government measured inflation or real inflation?

tenpanhandle's picture

Who made you the arbiter?  You seem to be a self appointed facist. 

natty light's picture

So it is fascist to pay back contributions but not add welfare benefits...OOOk...

Bobbyrib's picture

"OK : you will get what you put in [adjusted for inflation, and just to be generous, we will add interest accrued per the 10-year] and then that's it; you can pay for your own private insurance with high-deductible because you didn't  pay but a small part of that."

Thank you. Would you like an address where to mail my check?

HulkHogan's picture

Bring back the government cheese.

tenpanhandle's picture

Thirty years ago, myself and my dog lived a week on a block of govt cheese; didn't shit for two weeks after.  To this day the thought of american cheese product makes me gag.

j0nx's picture

What are geat nachos?