A large group of people gave up hundreds of hours of their time to review the economic development situation and make recommendations. They receive them and then proceeded to do exactly the opposite. And they wonder why people are fed up and frustrated?posted @ Wednesday, February 6, 2013 - 13:29
If this boy was 20, had these issues most of his life and his parents had the means to get him help, it is crazy that they didn't( if, in fact, that is the case). Being a parent is/should be about doing what is right for your child no matter how that matches up to your opinion of how your life and child should be. Having children is as much a responsibility as a blessing and putting your head in the sand is at best harming your child. I have enormous sympathy for everyone affected, but have a hard time with those feelings toward his parents, or remaining one. Intervention and real help might not have changed this outcome, but you're going to have a hard time convincing me.posted @ Monday, December 17, 2012 - 12:37
@grove600: Where Doc Chey's was.posted @ Wednesday, November 28, 2012 - 18:18
Also, most republicans and libertarians want a limited government, not no government. That would be the anarchists.posted @ Sunday, November 4, 2012 - 09:44
I wouldn't be so quick to want a "popular vote" or a full democracy. Another term for it is rule of the mob or majority. If the revolutionary war was put to a democratic vote, we'd still be part of Britain. If the right to vote for minorities was a straight up majority, would they have a right to vote today? Part of the benefit of the representative democracy, or republic that we have, is that we are not run by the whims of the majority. The majority vote still comes through but is tempered by having to wait. In spite of all the griping about the electoral college, the only times we have had a split where the popular vote was different than the winners of the electoral vote, is when the popular vote was incredibly close. Not exactly an overthrow of public opinion.posted @ Sunday, November 4, 2012 - 09:42
@Abbesays: looks like it was!posted @ Thursday, October 11, 2012 - 14:09
@Pat: I am sure that everyone celebrating this result, or at least most, are sad to see a human being end up being as depraved and dangerous and this man was. However, once someone has repeatedly endangered the lives of others over several years, I do not think it unreasonable or sick to rejoice that they are gone. What if instead of a tree that man hit a car with a family in it and killed them? What if one of his robberies became more violent and he killed the next victim? Are you really distraught over the result of this man's own actions?posted @ Tuesday, October 9, 2012 - 09:07
@wearedoomed: So unnecessary and likely to get you banned.posted @ Tuesday, October 9, 2012 - 08:54
Great work by our police department. I'm also glad to see people fighting back against their robbers!posted @ Tuesday, October 9, 2012 - 08:53
How about just demanding doctors and hospitals report mistakes, complaints, etc. This is a great article on the positive effects of transparency: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044462010457800826333444135...posted @ Wednesday, September 26, 2012 - 08:06
@ATH1: Have you considered that a historical building does not pay the tax bills or insurance bills on this property? If the community isn't willing to, or can't, afford to share in the cost of the building, why should the landowner be expected to lose money to "preserve" it? I'm not saying it's necessarily a good thing for the building to be torn down (haven't seen it, don't know the details on what it would have cost to renovate and reuse), but there is a huge cost in preserving buildings that most people don't realize. In addition to the renovation cost and finding a business to fit the old style building, you have to account for all the money lost in taxes and insurance while you figure all of that out. It's a big risk that should be born by the whole community if they're set on making it a priority. Most people love historic buildings......until they see the cost required to preserve them and realized they have to pony up and not just make someone else shoulder that burden.posted @ Wednesday, August 29, 2012 - 11:12
@paper: If someone is so excited to have their house in a movie that they WANT to let them use it without any other form of compensation, why would YOU have a problem with it? It's not your house, you don't own it, it's not your decision. If it was an "unfair" deal all they had to say was, no thanks. These are adult homeowners and business owners, not children.posted @ Monday, August 27, 2012 - 11:03
@Logical: What lies? First, I never said we didn't need to change the system. We do. However, in spite of your rant, your colonoscopy was paid for, your son's care was paid for, and most importantly, both of you got the care you needed upfront. I am NOT arguing that you should have to have gone through all that trouble to get it covered (I've had similar problems in different ways), but you did get the care and it was covered as promised. As for your deductibles and premiums they are much less than mine, so don't think I don't feel the pain there (and I'm healthy!). The system of employer based care rewards those working for large corporations and punishes entrepreneurs and individuals. Discounts go to the larger and are made up by premiums on the individuals. If everything was individual based, or conversely, individuals could band together for group discounts, that would help immensely. Being able to compete across state lines would bring competition to the monopolies within states. Actually allowing people to purchase a health insurance plan that DOESN'T cover things like maternity, office visits, well visits would make available catastrophic care for the young and healthy at a reasonable rate. There are many things that can and should be done, even some contained in Obamacare, but the other 2,000+ pages in the law contain enough bad, unintended consequences waiting to happen that it will be crushing. If we could try each item or idea separately, see what it is, what it means and implement them individually, then the ones that have horrible consequences could be identified and undone. When you lump this many "grand ideas" that are expensive and change the entire structure of a major part of the economy into one massive bill, it's a recipe for disaster. The alternative is not "do nothing", it's "know what you're doing and do it deliberately and thoughtfully."posted @ Friday, August 24, 2012 - 11:28
@nelson: This is not an attempt to be a smar**s, but a real question. Where do you get obamacare as responsible for the 2%, but not the 7.5%?posted @ Friday, August 24, 2012 - 08:57
@Walter Becker: Other modern first world countries are in huge crisis due to entitlements such as healthcare, so to make a blanket statement about saving money is just not correct. Second, you have to factor in the quality of care, speed of access to care, and number of cutting edge developments in medicine that come out of the U.S. as opposed to other countries. While those improvements cost money, I think most people would be all for a higher cost of care if it meant finding a cure for cancer as opposed to low cost and no cure. Finally, your hypothetical situation about the person in Canada has a few problems with it. First, a person in retirement that has a home and wealth to pass down would not lose everything if they have health insurance. Just as a person who gets in a car wreck and kills someone accidentally will not "lose everything" if they have insurance. That's why it's called insurance. So let's say they're irresponsible and don't have it and this scenario happens. Yes, their financial life is in turmoil but they still get the care! Why should this wealthy, or even just comfortable, person not suffer the consequences of their irresponsibility in SOME way when other people with less money are responsible and pay money every year for insurance?posted @ Friday, August 24, 2012 - 08:56
@jrgarland: I share your reservations. IF, this is to be done, some, if not all, of these other authorities should be eliminated or shrunk and the funding for the new committee should come from funds re-allocated from the existing authorities. The last thing we need is yet another authority competing with existing ones and adding more requested funding. At minimum, this should be a zero sum game of restructuring.posted @ Thursday, August 16, 2012 - 10:51
My concern is not a roundabout, but to make sure it's a REAL roundabout that is big enough to function as intended. Have you seen the "roundabouts" in the boulevard area? Those are more like a big obstacle that makes things more difficult.posted @ Thursday, August 9, 2012 - 10:30
@harrumph: Potential is there for sickos...period. The Nazis were the socialist party of germany but I wouldn't attribute those sick qualities to all socialists. You start making extreme generalizations and you're going to diminish any potential "real" arguments you make and get yourself branded as a hater.posted @ Tuesday, August 7, 2012 - 14:49
@RightIswrong: Don't you think that's a little overboard? Your statement suggests anyone conservative is a racist mass-murderer. Disagree.....vehemently if necessary, but this is not helpful.posted @ Tuesday, August 7, 2012 - 14:08
Glad to see the consensus on this one.posted @ Monday, August 6, 2012 - 20:43
So glad this ended without anyone else, besides the convict, getting hurt!posted @ Monday, August 6, 2012 - 20:39
@Logical: I don't believe that a woman should have to dress like a nun and hide the fact that they are a woman in order to be taken seriously. To me, women like you, who denounce those solely based on how they choose to be dressed or express themselves phyically, do more harm to the women's movement then the chauvanists. Argue their points, quotes, whatever, but to lump women together based on how attractive they are, and then suggest that any attractive woman is obviously just there as a tool for a wiser man, is offensive.posted @ Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 19:31
And now I've digressed from the article entirely as I really try not to!
To bring it back to topic, I am very sad to see Helix go.posted @ Wednesday, July 11, 2012 - 16:35
@ned: I did not say that businesses with less than 50 employees are forced to provide insurance. I am saying that those small businesses will see costs go up in a number of ways; some of which are summarized in that article. Those businesses that do provide health insurance will see costs go up and already have. Those providing good health insurance benefits will really see them go up since there is a penalty on so called cadillac plans. The excise tax was included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) passed into law on March 23, 2010. The provision levies a 40% nondeductible tax on the annual value of health plan costs for employees that exceed $10,200 for single coverage or $27,500 for family coverage in 2018. Why are we penalizing employers from providing high coverage? Next is the increase in medicare payroll tax, the new medicare tax on investment income and the crazy increase in the amount of paperwork needed to report and justify plans they provide.
Finally, if you can quote the white house, I'm thinking an organization that represents small businesses is not much of a stretch. One thing I will agree with is that most small employers will not have to put up with the increased cost and headaches of providing healthcare.......... because they'll drop it. The cost of the increase in people on the government plan has in no way been accounted for.
@ned: Not sure where you received the quote from, but here is a small sample of the burdens that will be on small businesses.
Here's the source:
1. The tax credit is not a panacea for small businesses
Often cited as the cure-all for small businesses, the small business tax credit will do little to nothing to make purchasing insurance more affordable for small firms. A tax credit that is poorly structured is not going to provide sustainable and long-term relief from high healthcare costs.
· Very few small businesses will actually qualify for the tax credit, early estimates by CBO cite that just 12 percent of the small business population would benefit in any way.
· The credit is very restrictive and puts small business owners through a series of complicated “tests” to determine the actual amount of the credit. Three conditions must be met for small businesses to qualify for any portion of the credit:
1. Business size – Very few small firms will receive the full credit (only firms with 10 employees or less). For firms with 11-25 employees, the credit is reduced per employee. Firms with more than 25 employees get NO credit.
2. Average employee wages – The credit is tied to the average wage of workers. Only firms who pay their workers $25,000 or less are eligible for the full credit. The credit is reduced as the average wage goes up, stopping at $50,000. (Note: Average wage for a firm with 10 or fewer employees is approximately $27,000.)
3. Employer contribution – Only firms covering 50 percent or more of insurance costs will be eligible.
· The credit is only available for a maximum of six years, but healthcare costs will continue to increase well after those six years.
2. A tax on small business health insurance plans
Messaged as a “health insurance fee,” this tax is actually a tax on small business. The new tax is structured as an annual fee on insurers and it does not expire. The annual “fee” begins at $8 billion in 2014 and steadily increases to $14.3 billion in 2018. In subsequent years, this fee remains at $14.3 billion annually added to whatever the rate of premium increase is for that year. One thing health insurers (and the CBO) have made clear: new taxes on them mean new costs passed on to customers. Small businesses will be paying for this new tax.
· How it works: An insurer’s portion of the annual tax will be determined based on their market share. Insurers aren’t simply going to absorb this new, expensive tax.
· These new costs will be passed solely onto the fully-insured market (where nearly all small businesses buy their insurance) because Congress exempted self-insured plans (big business and labor unions are exempt).
· Early estimates from policy analysts show family premiums are expected to go up at least $500 per year.
· Simply put: This is not a tax insurers will be paying. This is a tax on small businesses’ health insurance plans.
· Small businesses already suffer from high and volatile costs increases; a new tax like this doesn’t help to reduce future costs.
3. Increase the tax paperwork costs on small businesses
The so-called “corporate reporting” requirement will place a new and enormous tax-filing burden on all small business owners. The cost of complying with the new filing requirements will increase the cost of doing business and falls disproportionately on small business owners.
· Businesses will have to send Form 1099s for every business-to-business transaction of $600 or more – a tremendous new paperwork burden.
· The costs associated with tax paperwork (on average, more than $74 per hour) is the most expensive paperwork burden that the federal government imposes on small business owners.
· The cost of tax compliance falls heavily on small business and is 66 percent higher for a small business compared to a large business.
· Complying with the tax code is especially burdensome to small business owners, because they lack in-house finance departments like most large businesses. This means the burden to comply with the paperwork is either handled by the owner or outsourced to an accounting firm.
4. An unprecedented increase in Medicare payroll tax
Since its creation, payroll taxes that fund Medicare programs have been dedicated specifically to funding Medicare. Not only does H.R. 3590 increase the Medicare payroll tax to 2.35 percent but it uses the additional revenue to pay for non-Medicare programs, creating a dangerous precedent to use payroll taxes to pay for more non-Medicare programs in the future.
· The bill adds a new tax on income over $200,000 for individuals ($250,000 for joint filers). Adding to the problem, wages are not indexed for inflation, meaning that more small businesses will face this tax increase each year.
· Since 75 percent of small business owners pay their taxes at the individual level, this tax will hit the business income of many small business owners.
· The businesses most likely to see the tax increase are those that employee between 20 to 200 workers. These businesses account for more than one-quarter of the American workforce.
5. A new Medicare tax on non-payroll income
This new tax continues the unprecedented trend of dedicating Medicare tax revenue to non-Medicare programs and also expands the tax to additional sources of income.
· Medicare has traditionally been funded by taxes paid on a worker’s wages. The new 3.8 percent tax on those reporting $200,000 in income ($250,000 for joint filers) will, for the first time, apply to non-wage income such as capital gains, rents, interest, royalties and dividends. (75 percent of small business owners pay their taxes at the individual level).
· Ninety-five percent of small business owners own real estate. Whether the real estate is sold for a profit or rented to another business, this income will now be subjected to an additional 3.8 percent tax.
· This new tax will deter investment in businesses and other profit-earning ventures.
Want your business here? Contact Leslie Turner for more information.
Kolton Houston took his story nationally last weekend. read more
Georgia athletic director Greg McGarity expects the 2014 football schedule to be released later this month at the Southeastern Conference spring meeting in Destin, Fla. The remaining SEC West opponent for Georgia is the big reveal. McGarity said he saw ?models? of the ?14 schedule in a meeting of conference athletic directors last week in Jacksonville, but that it?s still under review. He?s not worried about Georgia?s strength of schedule for the coming four-team playoff. read more