Libs try to infiltrate tea party to feed liberal media

[drsmith1072]

Tell that to AT&T what "might happen" in the future. They have already had to report charges from Obamacare, and when Henry Waxman tried to bully them into taking it back, Henry Waxman had to blink because AT&T were following the LAW.

Michelle Malkin Henry Waxman: The Witch Hunter of Capitol Hill

Michelle Malkin Torquemada Waxman is still watching you

AT and ampT Plans $1 Billion Charge for Health Care - NYTimes.com

AFP: Boeing plans 150-million-dollar charge under health-care law

Here's a real interesting one:


State estimates health care overhaul will cost Texas $27 billion | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Texas Politics | The Dallas Morning News



Waxman Convenes the First Death Panel - WSJ.com

And that's just what is happening NOW. We haven't even SEEN what this law is going to do to us, because the costs hit us now but a lot of the actual policy doesn't roll into until 2014.

Fail? I HAVEN'T EVEN BEGUN TO TALK ABOUT THIS LAW!

Nice spin but in the end that's all it is. It appears that your articles talk about FUTURE plans based on estimates and estimates which have NOT yet occured.



and



It's called scare tactics and fear mongering they are trying to throw their weight around and demand changes to the law. Will they actually go through with it?? Who knows but it doesn't look like it has happened yet.


oh and this

We haven't even SEEN what this law is going to do to us

is an admission that you don't know and are still mkaing judgments based on your assumption based HYPOTHETICALS.

You in fact do debate hypotheticals. You lied so therefore everything you say is questionable and a lie.

Hey it's your own standard so it's only fair that it be applied to you. LOL

No it boils down to these companies ARE REQUIRED BY LAW THAT WAS PUT INTO EFFECT AFTER ENRON, to report how much money Obamcare is going to cost them.

That's not a hypothetical. That's a reality. No matter how you want to spin it, you can't get around the fact that even Waxman had to back down from intimidating them on this fact.

And those costs are going to translate into lost jobs for this economy. Companies losing money like that don't hire.

That's a direct result of Obamcare and only the first one.

Keep sputtering liberals. But I'll be laughing as I tick off each and every result as Obamcare kicks in.

I pointed out excerpts from your own articles that counter your spin. The things that your articles are talking about HAVEN'T HAPPENED YET. So once again you are basing your OPINIONS on hypoctheticals that may or may not happen.

IGNORING THE FACTS DOESN'T MAKE THEM GO AWAY.

Your own articles and you own post shows that no action has been taken YET so it nothing but HYPOTHETICAL on what might happen in the future. No jobs have been lost, no money spent it and YOU are all talking about things that MIGHT happen in the future.

you lied AGAIN therefore all of your posts are suspect.

 

[teapartysamurai]

LOL increasing the font size isn't a valid way to substantiate your arguments.

You made the false claim that one photo being falsely represented shows that the others are false and that is dishonest of YOU. One has nothing to do with the others and for you to claim that it does, exposes you as dishonest. Based on your own logic that if one was false then all were false, then all of your claims are false.

BTW I see that you once again failed to provide proof of your claim that the guy with the swastika sign, that was on the left side of the stage with the sign being held up openly, was a plant. You also failed to prove that the nutjobs at previous tea party events were ALL plants.

The fact that you have a habit of avoiding FACTS that don't suit your spin leads me to believe that you know you don't have the proof or you would have provided it.

No nice try. But if one photo is false THEN THEY ARE ALL SUSPECT.

You are playing the Dan Rather tactic. When the Bush National Guard records were found to be frauds, he demanded people "prove" they are fake.

THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS. The onus was on Dan Rather to provide evidence they were legitimate. If he could not do that, then they are suspect and not legitimate.

No court of law in the country would buy either your or Dan Rather's argument that *I* have to provide evidence for someone else's posted photos.

I already did what I had to do. Posted enough evidence to make it clear the photos are suspect. I need do no more.

The onus is on the person who posted the photos to provide evidence of their legitimacy.

Now rant and rave your way around that. No matter how many internet tantrums you have, the reality of who needs to provide evidence, won't change.

If that is the case then ALL of your posts are suspect. It's your standard and i have pointed out how your posts are less than honest. Therefore they are all suspect.

I am not demanding that you prove they are fake so thanks for the strawman. I am just pointing out to you that your logic is flawed and just because one is fake it is NOT proof that all are fake. That is what you originally claimed and that is not HONEST and neither is rephrasing your argument to try and save face. You talk about honesty and the you fail to be honest yourself. LOL

As for the onus being on the person who posted it, you were the one that posted that the guy with the swastika sign was a plant and yet you have failed to prove that claim and continue to avoid doing so despite being called out for your avoidance several times. Do you have the proof or not??

You tried to dodge, you failed, you exposed your dishonesty AGAIN and therefore everything that you post is suspect. Thanks again. LOL

Nice try but I don't don't have to prove anything. You are still desperately clinging to the Dan Rather ploy and it won't serve you anymore than it helped Rather.

(and Obama says the "bitter clingers" are on the right)


I don't have to provide evidence for photos someone else posted.

I already proved one was suspect thus making them all suspect.

The onus is on the person who posted them.

I'm sorry you are so devoid in logic that you cannot understand this, but you cannot prove a negative.

You are only displaying your clear lack of understanding in this regard.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have not proved anything, TPS, thus you are irrelevant.

Your lying does not help your cause either. But you are fun to watch wiggle like a worm on a hook.

 

[teapartysamurai]

This type of nonsense "This healthcare law has already cause millions in damage that is going to translate into even more people being out of work" is what is sinking you now. Folks know you are lying.

By all the urls I posted that you obviously didn't bother to read, because your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused by the facts?

It's pretty obvious who is lying.

 

[drsmith1072]

Continue to dribble and drivel. You are fun to watch run around like a hamster in a cage.

This is the saving face part of the debate kids.

It's when liberals have exhausted every last bit of their tactics and they have all failed. They go to the "well at least I'll get the last word!" tactic.

It's hilarious to watch.

If by failed you mean that we have failed to get you to see reason and admit when you are wrong when proven wrong then that would be closer to the truth than anything that you have written. Other than that, this is you trying to demonize someone you disagree with as you try to "get the last word in" and that's all it is.

 

[teapartysamurai]

You have not proved anything, TPS, thus you are irrelevant.

Your lying does not help your cause either. But you are fun to watch wiggle like a worm on a hook.

Yeah yeah yeah, I'm lying because you say so.

And I attacked first because you say so.

Just because I have evidence to disprove both is beside the point.

 

[drsmith1072]

A) I'm not a son, I'm a woman.

B) A signed law is NOT a hypothetical. There is actual language in the law tell ing us what will happen.

That is what we are objecting to. You want to pretend it's just all good intentions with no actual language we can point to.

Sorry but that just isn't the case.

No the signed law is NOT a hypocthetical but the future and not yet occuring effects that you continue to whine about ARE hypotheitcal.
So what specifics are you pointing to? I have seen claims but nothing of substance about what is actually GOING to happen in the future concerning SPECIFICS within the law itself. So where are the examples of the ACTUAL (meaning quotes from the law paragraph and all) language that you are referring to??

You said you could do it. So do it.

I have already posted a slew of links that prove they are NOT hypotheticals. The law is already going to cost several companies millions. So much so, Henry Waxman tried to demand they come up to Washington and explain themselves.

Waxman had to back down when someone explained to the pompous idiots these companies were only following the law.

And i ahve torn your assumptions that you based on those articles to shreds. They are talking about future events that have not yet happened and you are doing the same.

Oh and BTW you said and i quote

You want to pretend it's just all good intentions with no actual language we can point to.

Sorry but that just isn't the case.

So I ask you for the "actual language" within the bill that you claim that you "can point to" and you avoid doing so which shows that you CAN'T do what you claimed.

Thanks for the spin.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Nice spin but in the end that's all it is. It appears that your articles talk about FUTURE plans based on estimates and estimates which have NOT yet occured.



and



It's called scare tactics and fear mongering they are trying to throw their weight around and demand changes to the law. Will they actually go through with it?? Who knows but it doesn't look like it has happened yet.


oh and this



is an admission that you don't know and are still mkaing judgments based on your assumption based HYPOTHETICALS.

You in fact do debate hypotheticals. You lied so therefore everything you say is questionable and a lie.

Hey it's your own standard so it's only fair that it be applied to you. LOL

No it boils down to these companies ARE REQUIRED BY LAW THAT WAS PUT INTO EFFECT AFTER ENRON, to report how much money Obamcare is going to cost them.

That's not a hypothetical. That's a reality. No matter how you want to spin it, you can't get around the fact that even Waxman had to back down from intimidating them on this fact.

And those costs are going to translate into lost jobs for this economy. Companies losing money like that don't hire.

That's a direct result of Obamcare and only the first one.

Keep sputtering liberals. But I'll be laughing as I tick off each and every result as Obamcare kicks in.

I pointed out excerpts from your own articles that counter your spin. The things that your articles are talking about HAVEN'T HAPPENED YET. So once again you are basing your OPINIONS on hypoctheticals that may or may not happen.

IGNORING THE FACTS DOESN'T MAKE THEM GO AWAY.

Your own articles and you own post shows that no action has been taken YET so it nothing but HYPOTHETICAL on what might happen in the future. No jobs have been lost, no money spent it and YOU are all talking about things that MIGHT happen in the future.

you lied AGAIN therefore all of your posts are suspect.

No you didn't:

The telecommunications giant AT&T said on Friday that it would take a $1 billion noncash accounting charge in the first quarter because of the health care overhaul and might cut benefits it offers.

The charge is the largest disclosed so far. Earlier this week, the AK Steel Corporation, Caterpillar, Deere & Company and Valero Energy announced similar accounting charges, saying the health care law that President Obama signed Tuesday would raise their expenses. On Friday, the 3M Company said it would 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 profit. In the fourth quarter of 2009, the company earned $3 billion on revenue of $30.9 billion.

AT&T said Friday that the charge reflected 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.

A White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said Thursday that the tax law closed a loophole.

Under the 2003 Medicare prescription drug program, companies that provide prescription drug benefits for retirees have been able to receive subsidies covering 28 percent of eligible costs. But they could deduct the entire amount they spent on these drug benefits — including the subsidies — from their taxable income.

The new law allows companies to deduct only the 72 percent they spent.
AT&T said that it was also looking into changing the health care benefits it offered because of the law. Analysts say retirees could lose the prescription drug coverage provided by their former employers as a result of the overhaul.

AT and ampT Plans $1 Billion Charge for Health Care - NYTimes.com

They are required by law to report this. It's gong to cost them money or they will have to change benefits in new contract negotiations with the unions.

That means no matter how you slice it, it's going to cost money. Either in lost jobs or HIGHER HEALTHCARE COSTS for their employees.

That's NOT a hypothetical.

And it's just starting. Wait until we get to 2014.

 

[drsmith1072]

This type of nonsense "This healthcare law has already cause millions in damage that is going to translate into even more people being out of work" is what is sinking you now. Folks know you are lying.

Exactly, he is making assumptions based on his own opinion based hypotheticals when he claims that he doesn't debate hypotheticals. LOL

 

[teapartysamurai]

No the signed law is NOT a hypocthetical but the future and not yet occuring effects that you continue to whine about ARE hypotheitcal.
So what specifics are you pointing to? I have seen claims but nothing of substance about what is actually GOING to happen in the future concerning SPECIFICS within the law itself. So where are the examples of the ACTUAL (meaning quotes from the law paragraph and all) language that you are referring to??

You said you could do it. So do it.

I have already posted a slew of links that prove they are NOT hypotheticals. The law is already going to cost several companies millions. So much so, Henry Waxman tried to demand they come up to Washington and explain themselves.

Waxman had to back down when someone explained to the pompous idiots these companies were only following the law.

And i ahve torn your assumptions that you based on those articles to shreds. They are talking about future events that have not yet happened and you are doing the same.

Oh and BTW you said and i quote

You want to pretend it's just all good intentions with no actual language we can point to.

Sorry but that just isn't the case.

So I ask you for the "actual language" within the bill that you claim that you "can point to" and you avoid doing so which shows that you CAN'T do what you claimed.

Thanks for the spin.

Tore it down? You took out one sentence that you hoped you could spin:

WASHINGTON — US aerospace giant Boeing said Wednesday it expected to take an income-tax charge of about 150 million dollars in the 2010 first quarter as a result of sweeping health-care reform.

Boeing said that under the legislation, a final version of which was signed into law Tuesday by President Barack Obama, it can no longer claim an income-tax deduction related to prescription drug benefits provided to retirees and reimbursed under a federal subsidy.

"Although this tax increase does not take effect until 2013, accounting standards require that a deferred income-tax asset be written down in the period legislation changing the tax law is enacted," the Chicago-based company said in a statement.

Boeing said the charge was expected to reduce net earnings by approximately 150 million dollars, or 20 cents per share, in the first quarter of 2010.

"Cash impacts of this charge will be realized over many years beginning in 2013," the firm said, adding that it will update guidance issued on January 27 when it releases first-quarter financial results.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hI4qn-ML0rSDTCCl5kDuKAdHMQPQ

This is the LAW. They have to do this.

It's already going to affect them. That's not a hypothetical.

Just because you don't understand the workings of business doesn't change that.

And you can't demand what I have to provide you for evidence. The language is not necessary if I can demonstrate the results, which I already have done.



You guys aren't out of school yet, are you?

Pretty obvious.

 

[drsmith1072]

No nice try. But if one photo is false THEN THEY ARE ALL SUSPECT.

You are playing the Dan Rather tactic. When the Bush National Guard records were found to be frauds, he demanded people "prove" they are fake.

THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS. The onus was on Dan Rather to provide evidence they were legitimate. If he could not do that, then they are suspect and not legitimate.

No court of law in the country would buy either your or Dan Rather's argument that *I* have to provide evidence for someone else's posted photos.

I already did what I had to do. Posted enough evidence to make it clear the photos are suspect. I need do no more.

The onus is on the person who posted the photos to provide evidence of their legitimacy.

Now rant and rave your way around that. No matter how many internet tantrums you have, the reality of who needs to provide evidence, won't change.

If that is the case then ALL of your posts are suspect. It's your standard and i have pointed out how your posts are less than honest. Therefore they are all suspect.

I am not demanding that you prove they are fake so thanks for the strawman. I am just pointing out to you that your logic is flawed and just because one is fake it is NOT proof that all are fake. That is what you originally claimed and that is not HONEST and neither is rephrasing your argument to try and save face. You talk about honesty and the you fail to be honest yourself. LOL

As for the onus being on the person who posted it, you were the one that posted that the guy with the swastika sign was a plant and yet you have failed to prove that claim and continue to avoid doing so despite being called out for your avoidance several times. Do you have the proof or not??

You tried to dodge, you failed, you exposed your dishonesty AGAIN and therefore everything that you post is suspect. Thanks again. LOL

Nice try but I don't don't have to prove anything. You are still desperately clinging to the Dan Rather ploy and it won't serve you anymore than it helped Rather.

(and Obama says the "bitter clingers" are on the right)


I don't have to provide evidence for photos someone else posted.

I already proved one was suspect thus making them all suspect.

The onus is on the person who posted them.

I'm sorry you are so devoid in logic that you cannot understand this, but you cannot prove a negative.

You are only displaying your clear lack of understanding in this regard.

Actually YOU made the claim that because one is fake they all are fake and that is a LIE. Unless you can prove that all are fake then YOU LIED. In recent post you have backtracked and tried to claim that they are merely suspect but in your original argument you claimed that they were fake and the author was a lair.

YOU made the claim that they were all fake becuase one was and can't back up your own claim that onus is on YOU.
You could be honest and admit that you were WRONG but I don't believe that you have the integrity to be so honest.

Oh and i will post this again and again until you respond to it.

As for the onus being on the person who posted it, you were the one that posted that the guy with the swastika sign was a plant and yet you have failed to prove that claim and continue to avoid doing so despite being called out for your avoidance several times. Do you have the proof or not??

So will you respond or are you going to continue to be dishonest and avoid it?

 

[drsmith1072]

This type of nonsense "This healthcare law has already cause millions in damage that is going to translate into even more people being out of work" is what is sinking you now. Folks know you are lying.

By all the urls I posted that you obviously didn't bother to read, because your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused by the facts?

It's pretty obvious who is lying.

I read them and supplied you with excerpts that counter your spin.

So, yeah it's pretty obvious that YOU are lying. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

No it boils down to these companies ARE REQUIRED BY LAW THAT WAS PUT INTO EFFECT AFTER ENRON, to report how much money Obamcare is going to cost them.

That's not a hypothetical. That's a reality. No matter how you want to spin it, you can't get around the fact that even Waxman had to back down from intimidating them on this fact.

And those costs are going to translate into lost jobs for this economy. Companies losing money like that don't hire.

That's a direct result of Obamcare and only the first one.

Keep sputtering liberals. But I'll be laughing as I tick off each and every result as Obamcare kicks in.

I pointed out excerpts from your own articles that counter your spin. The things that your articles are talking about HAVEN'T HAPPENED YET. So once again you are basing your OPINIONS on hypoctheticals that may or may not happen.

IGNORING THE FACTS DOESN'T MAKE THEM GO AWAY.

Your own articles and you own post shows that no action has been taken YET so it nothing but HYPOTHETICAL on what might happen in the future. No jobs have been lost, no money spent it and YOU are all talking about things that MIGHT happen in the future.

you lied AGAIN therefore all of your posts are suspect.

No you didn't:

The telecommunications giant AT&T said on Friday that it would take a $1 billion noncash accounting charge in the first quarter because of the health care overhaul and might cut benefits it offers.

The charge is the largest disclosed so far. Earlier this week, the AK Steel Corporation, Caterpillar, Deere & Company and Valero Energy announced similar accounting charges, saying the health care law that President Obama signed Tuesday would raise their expenses. On Friday, the 3M Company said it would 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 profit. In the fourth quarter of 2009, the company earned $3 billion on revenue of $30.9 billion.

AT&T said Friday that the charge reflected 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.

A White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said Thursday that the tax law closed a loophole.

Under the 2003 Medicare prescription drug program, companies that provide prescription drug benefits for retirees have been able to receive subsidies covering 28 percent of eligible costs. But they could deduct the entire amount they spent on these drug benefits — including the subsidies — from their taxable income.

The new law allows companies to deduct only the 72 percent they spent.
AT&T said that it was also looking into changing the health care benefits it offered because of the law. Analysts say retirees could lose the prescription drug coverage provided by their former employers as a result of the overhaul.

AT and ampT Plans $1 Billion Charge for Health Care - NYTimes.com

They are required by law to report this. It's gong to cost them money or they will have to change benefits in new contract negotiations with the unions.

That means no matter how you slice it, it's going to cost money. Either in lost jobs or HIGHER HEALTHCARE COSTS for their employees.

That's NOT a hypothetical.

And it's just starting. Wait until we get to 2014.

In case you missed it there is a HUGE difference between "it WOULD take" and it did take.

one has happened the other hasn't. Do you know which is which?? Doesn't seem that you do.

Again the article in question seems to be talking about things that haven't happened yet and it's hilarious that you went to the one article that i didn't cut an ecxcerpt from last time. I guess you realized how I shredded them and decided to avoid admitting that by avoiding the articles. LOL

those costs are going to translate into lost jobs for this economy

that's a hypocthetical cut form your own thread. You lied therefore all of your post are suspect and lies, you lose AGAIN. LOL

 

[teapartysamurai]

If that is the case then ALL of your posts are suspect. It's your standard and i have pointed out how your posts are less than honest. Therefore they are all suspect.

I am not demanding that you prove they are fake so thanks for the strawman. I am just pointing out to you that your logic is flawed and just because one is fake it is NOT proof that all are fake. That is what you originally claimed and that is not HONEST and neither is rephrasing your argument to try and save face. You talk about honesty and the you fail to be honest yourself. LOL

As for the onus being on the person who posted it, you were the one that posted that the guy with the swastika sign was a plant and yet you have failed to prove that claim and continue to avoid doing so despite being called out for your avoidance several times. Do you have the proof or not??

You tried to dodge, you failed, you exposed your dishonesty AGAIN and therefore everything that you post is suspect. Thanks again. LOL

Nice try but I don't don't have to prove anything. You are still desperately clinging to the Dan Rather ploy and it won't serve you anymore than it helped Rather.

(and Obama says the "bitter clingers" are on the right)


I don't have to provide evidence for photos someone else posted.

I already proved one was suspect thus making them all suspect.

The onus is on the person who posted them.

I'm sorry you are so devoid in logic that you cannot understand this, but you cannot prove a negative.

You are only displaying your clear lack of understanding in this regard.

Actually YOU made the claim that because one is fake they all are fake and that is a LIE. Unless you can prove that all are fake then YOU LIED. In recent post you have backtracked and tried to claim that they are merely suspect but in your original argument you claimed that they were fake and the author was a lair.

YOU made the claim that they were all fake becuase one was and can't back up your own claim that onus is on YOU.
You could be honest and admit that you were WRONG but I don't believe that you have the integrity to be so honest.

Oh and i will post this again and again until you respond to it.

As for the onus being on the person who posted it, you were the one that posted that the guy with the swastika sign was a plant and yet you have failed to prove that claim and continue to avoid doing so despite being called out for your avoidance several times. Do you have the proof or not??

So will you respond or are you going to continue to be dishonest and avoid it?

Look you aren't out of school are you? It's becoming more and more obvious by your inability to understand how logic and evidence works.

No matter how you to try to force me on the defensive it isn't going to work.

I'm not the one that posted the photos. Have you ever been in a court of law? The Defense attorney doesn't have to "prove beyond a shadow of a doubt" his client's innocence. All he need to is prove the Prosecuting's attorney's evidence against his client is suspect or lacking.

I'm already done that.

The onus is on the one providing the evidence to prove BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT.

Because you can't prove a negative.

That's why our court system is based on innocent until proved guilty.

Now let's take this case. This poster, posts a bunch of photos and accuses the Tea Party of being racists, etc, based the evidence of his photos.

*I* like a defense attorney point out the evidence against my "client" the tea party, is suspect because of a defect in the evidence (in that one of the photos is fake, not from a tea party, being from 2003, and there is no evidence or url provided to prove the validity of the rest.)

The onus is on the prosecutor, the person who posted the photos, to prove otherwise, by providing evidence for the validity of these photos.

He hasn't done that, nor I doubt will he, because it's pretty obvious, the photos are not legit.

If they were, he would have simply provided evidence of their source, as I did with the photos I produced for left wing protests.

Now those simple facts of logic and how evidence works aren't going to change because you keep having an internet tantrum.

Sorry, but the onus is on the person who posted the photos. Get over it. It's not going to change just because you keep throwing yourself on the floor, throwing a tantrum and demanding to have your way.

 

[teapartysamurai]

This type of nonsense "This healthcare law has already cause millions in damage that is going to translate into even more people being out of work" is what is sinking you now. Folks know you are lying.

By all the urls I posted that you obviously didn't bother to read, because your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused by the facts?

It's pretty obvious who is lying.

I read them and supplied you with excerpts that counter your spin.

So, yeah it's pretty obvious that YOU are lying. LOL

Well you know I won the debate when that's all the left has left.

"you're lying!!!!!!"

At least they didn't pull out the race card.

 

[drsmith1072]

I have already posted a slew of links that prove they are NOT hypotheticals. The law is already going to cost several companies millions. So much so, Henry Waxman tried to demand they come up to Washington and explain themselves.

Waxman had to back down when someone explained to the pompous idiots these companies were only following the law.

And i ahve torn your assumptions that you based on those articles to shreds. They are talking about future events that have not yet happened and you are doing the same.

Oh and BTW you said and i quote



So I ask you for the "actual language" within the bill that you claim that you "can point to" and you avoid doing so which shows that you CAN'T do what you claimed.

Thanks for the spin.

Tore it down? You took out one sentence that you hoped you could spin:

WASHINGTON — US aerospace giant Boeing said Wednesday it expected to take an income-tax charge of about 150 million dollars in the 2010 first quarter as a result of sweeping health-care reform.

Boeing said that under the legislation, a final version of which was signed into law Tuesday by President Barack Obama, it can no longer claim an income-tax deduction related to prescription drug benefits provided to retirees and reimbursed under a federal subsidy.

"Although this tax increase does not take effect until 2013, accounting standards require that a deferred income-tax asset be written down in the period legislation changing the tax law is enacted," the Chicago-based company said in a statement.

Boeing said the charge was expected to reduce net earnings by approximately 150 million dollars, or 20 cents per share, in the first quarter of 2010.

"Cash impacts of this charge will be realized over many years beginning in 2013," the firm said, adding that it will update guidance issued on January 27 when it releases first-quarter financial results.

AFP: Boeing plans 150-million-dollar charge under health-care law

This is the LAW. They have to do this.

It's already going to affect them. That's not a hypothetical.

Just because you don't understand the workings of business doesn't change that.

And you can't demand what I have to provide you for evidence. The language is not necessary if I can demonstrate the results, which I already have done.



You guys aren't out of school yet, are you?

Pretty obvious.

Still waiting on you to cite the "actual language" from the bill?? You said you can do it so why do you continue to avoid doing it? LOL

LOL it's "going to affect them" is a future event that has not yet occured and is based on a hypothetical which you said you do not debate in. You lied you lose again. LOL

 

[teapartysamurai]

I pointed out excerpts from your own articles that counter your spin. The things that your articles are talking about HAVEN'T HAPPENED YET. So once again you are basing your OPINIONS on hypoctheticals that may or may not happen.

IGNORING THE FACTS DOESN'T MAKE THEM GO AWAY.

Your own articles and you own post shows that no action has been taken YET so it nothing but HYPOTHETICAL on what might happen in the future. No jobs have been lost, no money spent it and YOU are all talking about things that MIGHT happen in the future.

you lied AGAIN therefore all of your posts are suspect.

No you didn't:



AT and ampT Plans $1 Billion Charge for Health Care - NYTimes.com

They are required by law to report this. It's gong to cost them money or they will have to change benefits in new contract negotiations with the unions.

That means no matter how you slice it, it's going to cost money. Either in lost jobs or HIGHER HEALTHCARE COSTS for their employees.

That's NOT a hypothetical.

And it's just starting. Wait until we get to 2014.

In case you missed it there is a HUGE difference between "it WOULD take" and it did take.

one has happened the other hasn't. Do you know which is which?? Doesn't seem that you do.

Again the article in question seems to be talking about things that haven't happened yet and it's hilarious that you went to the one article that i didn't cut an ecxcerpt from last time. I guess you realized how I shredded them and decided to avoid admitting that by avoiding the articles. LOL

those costs are going to translate into lost jobs for this economy

that's a hypocthetical cut form your own thread. You lied therefore all of your post are suspect and lies, you lose AGAIN. LOL

You don't understand how businesses have to take these charges or report them.

Like I said, pretty obvious, you are still in school.

I understand. You will be out there one day and have to work at one of these companies, then you will start to get it.

 

[teapartysamurai]

And i ahve torn your assumptions that you based on those articles to shreds. They are talking about future events that have not yet happened and you are doing the same.

Oh and BTW you said and i quote



So I ask you for the "actual language" within the bill that you claim that you "can point to" and you avoid doing so which shows that you CAN'T do what you claimed.

Thanks for the spin.

Tore it down? You took out one sentence that you hoped you could spin:

WASHINGTON — US aerospace giant Boeing said Wednesday it expected to take an income-tax charge of about 150 million dollars in the 2010 first quarter as a result of sweeping health-care reform.

Boeing said that under the legislation, a final version of which was signed into law Tuesday by President Barack Obama, it can no longer claim an income-tax deduction related to prescription drug benefits provided to retirees and reimbursed under a federal subsidy.

"Although this tax increase does not take effect until 2013, accounting standards require that a deferred income-tax asset be written down in the period legislation changing the tax law is enacted," the Chicago-based company said in a statement.

Boeing said the charge was expected to reduce net earnings by approximately 150 million dollars, or 20 cents per share, in the first quarter of 2010.

"Cash impacts of this charge will be realized over many years beginning in 2013," the firm said, adding that it will update guidance issued on January 27 when it releases first-quarter financial results.

AFP: Boeing plans 150-million-dollar charge under health-care law

This is the LAW. They have to do this.

It's already going to affect them. That's not a hypothetical.

Just because you don't understand the workings of business doesn't change that.

And you can't demand what I have to provide you for evidence. The language is not necessary if I can demonstrate the results, which I already have done.



You guys aren't out of school yet, are you?

Pretty obvious.

Still waiting on you to cite the "actual language" from the bill?? You said you can do it so why do you continue to avoid doing it? LOL

LOL it's "going to affect them" is a future event that has not yet occured and is based on a hypothetical which you said you do not debate in. You lied you lose again. LOL

Still in school.

Throwing himself on the ground and demanding I debate HIS WAY or else!!!!!!!!

Like I said, I don't have to provide the language. Just the results, which I already have, and this is just the beginning.

 

[The T]

Tore it down? You took out one sentence that you hoped you could spin:



AFP: Boeing plans 150-million-dollar charge under health-care law

This is the LAW. They have to do this.

It's already going to affect them. That's not a hypothetical.

Just because you don't understand the workings of business doesn't change that.

And you can't demand what I have to provide you for evidence. The language is not necessary if I can demonstrate the results, which I already have done.



You guys aren't out of school yet, are you?

Pretty obvious.

Still waiting on you to cite the "actual language" from the bill?? You said you can do it so why do you continue to avoid doing it? LOL

LOL it's "going to affect them" is a future event that has not yet occured and is based on a hypothetical which you said you do not debate in. You lied you lose again. LOL

Still in school.

Throwing himself on the ground and demanding I debate HIS WAY or else!!!!!!!!

Like I said, I don't have to provide the language. Just the results, which I already have, and this is just the beginning.

He hasn't read it or is a denier. I'd like to know which.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Still waiting on you to cite the "actual language" from the bill?? You said you can do it so why do you continue to avoid doing it? LOL

LOL it's "going to affect them" is a future event that has not yet occured and is based on a hypothetical which you said you do not debate in. You lied you lose again. LOL

Still in school.

Throwing himself on the ground and demanding I debate HIS WAY or else!!!!!!!!

Like I said, I don't have to provide the language. Just the results, which I already have, and this is just the beginning.

He hasn't read it or is a denier. I'd like to know which.

I think it's pretty obvious he is still in school. That's why I tried to take the time to explain to him where he's wrong. (sigh).

But he is beginning to remind me of my 20 year old when she was 9 years old. Home from school for three days with a bad sore throat. The first day she goes back to school the temperature dips and we have a heavy snow. She comes home from school expecting to go play out in the snow.

Of course I said NO! But you try reasoning with a nine year old, as to why she can't play in the snow, after being home three days from school.

Trying to explain to this guy, these actions by these businesses are a direct result of Obamacare and NOT a hypothetical--Just about as hopless and exasperating.

They both aren't interested in reason, just having their way. (sigh)