Swing Votes
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 29 Mar 2010 18:53 On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 07:40:03 -0500, "Steve" <jsteve_n(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >"Don Ocean" <ocean(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:81anasFk5tU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> The King wrote: >>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 13:04:53 -0700, Jim Thompson >>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:00:11 -0400, The King >>>> <Theking(a)homeonthethrone.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:58:42 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> In reality, we right-wingers _will_ eventually tip over the edge. If >>>>>> this socialism goes too far we're going to round up all you leftist >>>>>> weenies and have a big weenie roast :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>>> You have been tipped over the edge and were coming to get you. >>>> Oh? Voluntarily coming to the weenie roast and pick-em-up truck >>>> drag-behind ?:-) >>>> >>>> ...Jim Thompson >>> >>> If you promise to wear your hood. >> >> I thought only Union members were allowed to wear hoods? > >Guys, thats not something to even joke about.... they are alive and well in >the *real* south. I was invited to attend another "headlight party" a week >or so ago. Yes, I politely declined (again). Bullshit.
From: krw on 29 Mar 2010 20:20 On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:49:07 -0700, Charlie E. <edmondson(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:16:21 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com >wrote: > >>On Mar 29, 11:03�am, Charlie E. <edmond...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:58:52 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >> � � � � Exactly. �And now American industry is reacting to the effect >>> >> on them, stating, like AT&T did ( and Caterpillar, and Verizon, and >>> >> many others, even in the few days since it passed ) that they will be >>> >> taking HUGE write-downs ( $ 1 BILLION for ATT ), laying people off, >>> >> cutting health benefits for employees and retirees, etc, because of >>> >> the expenses Brobama and the Dems have invented for them. >>> >>> >Note: That $1B AT&T charge is against this quarter's profits. �So, the >>> >new, better health care is costing them $4B a year, to start. �The >>> >costs scream skyward later, as the plans start paying benefits. >>> >>> >$4B, hmmm. �At $100K / per job, that's 40,000 jobs, destroyed. >>> >>> ><snip> >>> >>> Actually, as I heard it analyzed, the $1B was a total charge over 30 >>> years of additional costs due to changes in the bill, and doesn't >>> start till 2013 when those changes occur... >> >>That doesn't add up either. AT&T's health care costs are increased at >>least $250M per year just for retirees (i.e., $1B every four years for >>that one item alone). >> >>AT&T will certainly have higher costs for their 283,000 employees too, >>so $1B a year is entirely possible, or more. >> >>We'll see. >> >>So the good news is $1B AFA(we)CT, and that only destroys 10,000 >>jobs. That's 30,000 jobs created or saved, right? > >Ok, full explanation as I heard it... > >This charge is only for a change in the prescription drug benefits. >Presently, the gov. lets them write off 100% of the cost of drugs by >its employees, PLUS there is a 25% (exact percentage not in memory... >;-) ) subsidy payment from the gov. What is changing is that they can >have one, or the other, but not both. (in 2013!) So, this is the >charge that they can see now. They don't know yet what other changes >will happed... I would *suspect* that the $1B is the current value of the additional drug charges over the next 30 years. Or perhaps the current value of the tax on the benefit. Or perhaps just the increased tax for the quarter. ;-/
From: Steve on 29 Mar 2010 23:00 <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message news:gpb2r5dutgq62h5h8fq95c3nr6ggivf702(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 07:40:03 -0500, "Steve" <jsteve_n(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> >>"Don Ocean" <ocean(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:81anasFk5tU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>> The King wrote: >>>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 13:04:53 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:00:11 -0400, The King >>>>> <Theking(a)homeonthethrone.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:58:42 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> In reality, we right-wingers _will_ eventually tip over the edge. >>>>>>> If >>>>>>> this socialism goes too far we're going to round up all you leftist >>>>>>> weenies and have a big weenie roast :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>>>> You have been tipped over the edge and were coming to get you. >>>>> Oh? Voluntarily coming to the weenie roast and pick-em-up truck >>>>> drag-behind ?:-) >>>>> >>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>> >>>> If you promise to wear your hood. >>> >>> I thought only Union members were allowed to wear hoods? >> >>Guys, thats not something to even joke about.... they are alive and well >>in >>the *real* south. I was invited to attend another "headlight party" a week >>or so ago. Yes, I politely declined (again). > > Bullshit. Before you call bullshit, maybe you should come see for yourself?? OTOH, never mind, we don't need another damn yankee in south Mississippi.
From: krw on 29 Mar 2010 23:16 On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 22:00:15 -0500, "Steve" <jsteve_n(a)comcast.net> wrote: > ><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message >news:gpb2r5dutgq62h5h8fq95c3nr6ggivf702(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 07:40:03 -0500, "Steve" <jsteve_n(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Don Ocean" <ocean(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:81anasFk5tU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>>> The King wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 13:04:53 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:00:11 -0400, The King >>>>>> <Theking(a)homeonthethrone.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:58:42 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In reality, we right-wingers _will_ eventually tip over the edge. >>>>>>>> If >>>>>>>> this socialism goes too far we're going to round up all you leftist >>>>>>>> weenies and have a big weenie roast :-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>>>>> You have been tipped over the edge and were coming to get you. >>>>>> Oh? Voluntarily coming to the weenie roast and pick-em-up truck >>>>>> drag-behind ?:-) >>>>>> >>>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>>> >>>>> If you promise to wear your hood. >>>> >>>> I thought only Union members were allowed to wear hoods? >>> >>>Guys, thats not something to even joke about.... they are alive and well >>>in >>>the *real* south. I was invited to attend another "headlight party" a week >>>or so ago. Yes, I politely declined (again). >> >> Bullshit. > >Before you call bullshit, maybe you should come see for yourself?? OTOH, >never mind, we don't need another damn yankee in south Mississippi. You really are a fool.
From: dagmargoodboat on 29 Mar 2010 23:32
On Mar 29, 1:49 pm, Charlie E. <edmond...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:16:21 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > wrote: > > > > >On Mar 29, 11:03 am, Charlie E. <edmond...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:58:52 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > >> wrote: > > >> >> Exactly. And now American industry is reacting to the effect > >> >> on them, stating, like AT&T did ( and Caterpillar, and Verizon, and > >> >> many others, even in the few days since it passed ) that they will be > >> >> taking HUGE write-downs ( $ 1 BILLION for ATT ), laying people off, > >> >> cutting health benefits for employees and retirees, etc, because of > >> >> the expenses Brobama and the Dems have invented for them. > > >> >Note: That $1B AT&T charge is against this quarter's profits. So, the > >> >new, better health care is costing them $4B a year, to start. The > >> >costs scream skyward later, as the plans start paying benefits. > > >> >$4B, hmmm. At $100K / per job, that's 40,000 jobs, destroyed. > > >> ><snip> > > >> Actually, as I heard it analyzed, the $1B was a total charge over 30 > >> years of additional costs due to changes in the bill, and doesn't > >> start till 2013 when those changes occur... > > >That doesn't add up either. AT&T's health care costs are increased at > >least $250M per year just for retirees (i.e., $1B every four years for > >that one item alone). > > >AT&T will certainly have higher costs for their 283,000 employees too, > >so $1B a year is entirely possible, or more. > > >We'll see. > > >So the good news is $1B AFA(we)CT, and that only destroys 10,000 > >jobs. That's 30,000 jobs created or saved, right? > > Ok, full explanation as I heard it... > > This charge is only for a change in the prescription drug benefits. > Presently, the gov. lets them write off 100% of the cost of drugs by > its employees, PLUS there is a 25% (exact percentage not in memory... > ;-) ) subsidy payment from the gov. What is changing is that they can > have one, or the other, but not both. (in 2013!) So, this is the > charge that they can see now. They don't know yet what other changes > will happed... > > Charlie Yes, that's about right. Here's the footnote on pg. 82 of AT&T's 2009 Annual Report: "1. During 2009, 2008 and 2007, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 reduced postretirement benefit cost by $255, $263 and $342. [...]" (numbers are millions of dollars) That deduction is going away. It was meant as an incentive for employers to continue offering Rx benefits for retirees, thus saving Medicare from paying those same benefits. Getting rid of subsidies is fine with me. This change is, however, part of the uncounted cost of Obamacare--they're shifting the full retiree Rx cost to the private sector, who will now have to pay 100 cents of every Rx benefit rather than the 70-odd cents they used to pay. So, the cost of doing business is *higher*, but it counts as a *savings* (to the government) in the CBO figure. One assumes that AT&T has to apply this to the pension funds of current workers too, if Rx benefits are part of their retirement packages, and set aside additional reserves for the increased future cost anticipated. Or, just chop the benefit. -- Cheers, James Arthur |