the destruction of America.

You would deny the vote to disabled veterans & military retirees, retired cops, etc? Originally Posted by juan2fork

I think I grasped the concept of Dilbert's point. If you've never "contributed to the system" , but benefit from it.... perhaps your vote should be witheld until such time as you have shown some Personal Responsibility & Self Reliance !! Pay some taxes, at least!!

I could go even further.... but I'm sure I would receive the same Raking Over The Coals .... by saying property ownership might be another level of qualification.... but maybe that's going a step too far.

Giz

I think I grasped the concept of Dilbert's point. If you've never "contributed to the system" , but benefit from it.... perhaps your vote should be witheld until such time as you have shown some Personal Responsibility & Self Reliance !! Pay some taxes, at least!!

I could go even further.... but I'm sure I would receive the same Raking Over The Coals .... by saying property ownership might be another level of qualification.... but maybe that's going a step too far.

Giz Originally Posted by MrGiz

giz, you are correct, "contribution to america" (not necessariliy the system) is what I had in mind when I wrote it.

there was a time that property ownership was a requirement to be able to vote. I think the poll tax admendment did away with that requirement.

juan2fork, I meant no dis-respect to the veterans, but veterans should be able to vote..

“There was a time that property ownership was a requirement to be able to vote. I think the poll tax amendment did away with that requirement.”

It was Andy Jackson and company (the original Democrats) that moved against the property requirement in the late 1820s.


"Health care bill causes AT&T to take $1 billion charge, cut benefits
By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
03/26/10 9:56 PM EDT
I guess they read the bill to find out what was in it:

AT&T Inc. will take a $1 billion non-cash accounting charge in the first quarter because of the health care overhaul and may cut benefits it offers to current and retired workers.

The charge is the largest disclosed so far. Earlier this week, AK Steel Corp., Caterpillar Inc., Deere & Co. and Valero Energy announced similar accounting charges, saying the health care law that President Barack Obama signed Tuesday will raise their expenses. On Friday, 3M Co. said it will also take a charge of $85 million to $90 million.

All five are smaller than AT&T, and their combined charges are less than half of the $1 billion that AT&T is planning. The $1 billion is a third of AT&T’s most recent quarterly earnings. In the fourth quarter of 2009, the company earned $3 billion on revenue of $30.9 billion.

AT&T said Friday that the charge reflects changes to how Medicare subsidies are taxed. Companies say the health care overhaul will require them to start paying taxes next year on a subsidy they receive for retiree drug coverage.

And of course workers are going to take a hit as well:

AT&T also said Friday that it is looking into changing the health care benefits it offers because of the new law. Analysts say retirees could lose the prescription drug coverage provided by their former employers as a result of the overhaul."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/health-care-bill-causes-att-to-take-1-billion-charge-cut-benefits.html


Today, a Fox News reporter asked a former President Clinton adviser if he thought AT&T might have to fire current employees to pay for the additional costs of the new Health Care program. The adviser nonchalantly said “Yes. Either that or raise their prices.” I wonder: Do you think businesses in China or India will raise their prices just enough to allow these American companies to remain competitive in this 21st century world market? I suspect they’ll have to – to pay new, domestic workers who are eager to take the displaced jobs of Americans.


IBH