Waxman-HAULING CEO'S to congress for SEVERE SCOLDING for telling TRUTH on OBAMACARE.

Maple

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
4,674
Reaction score
568
Points
48
It doesn't get better than this.:clap2::clap2: CEO's and CPA's are looking at this monstrosity and doing the numbers. If the numbers don't work these CEO's have to warn their investors because it AFFECTS their EARNINGS, they are REQUIRED to by LAW under the SEC and GAAP standards set in place by the GOVERNMENT. They also have to WARN their EMPLOYEES by law that this will AFFECT their BENEFITS and most likely their JOBS.

So now they have one of their major PIT BULLS on it to stop the hemmoraging. Waxman looks like a PIT BULL, no insult to PIT BUllS intended here.:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

This happens on April 21st, is should be great fun to watch as these CEO's take thos PIP sqeaks to task on this. :lol::lol::lol:

Democrats threaten companies hit hard by health care bill | Washington Examiner

Waxman is also demanding that the executives give lawmakers internal company documents related to health care finances -- a move one committee Republican describes as "an attempt to intimidate and silence opponents of the Democrats' flawed health care reform legislation."

On Thursday and Friday, the companies -- so far, they include AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar, Deere, Valero Energy, AK Steel and 3M -- said a tax provision in the new health care law will make it far more expensive to provide prescription drug coverage to their retired employees. Now, both retirees and current employees of those companies are wondering whether the new law could mean reduced or canceled benefits for them in the future.

The news is an embarrassment



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...-health-care-bill-89347127.html#ixzz0jfnsQ4cR
 
Last edited:

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
114,529
Reaction score
26,551
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
No, once again, it's not about control and its not about Obama's Liberal Fascism. No, it's not. Really. Truly. Seriously. I was tired when I said "Control the people" when I meant "control the insurance companies"
 
OP
M

Maple

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
4,674
Reaction score
568
Points
48
No, once again, it's not about control and its not about Obama's Liberal Fascism. No, it's not. Really. Truly. Seriously. I was tired when I said "Control the people" when I meant "control the insurance companies"
And he was exhausted when he said, " spread the wealth," Of course, that's not socialism and I am not a socialist. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
OP
M

Maple

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
4,674
Reaction score
568
Points
48
Ever notice that these type of threads don't attract any of the FLAMING LIBERALS to them. No response, the silence from them is deafening on this issue- could it be that they just don't know how to respond to the FACTS AND TRUTH of this issue??? LOLOLOLOL

In fact, since (Jillian) found out that kids with pre-exisitng conditions are not covered until 2014, she has not made a show on these boards. Could it be that she is dissolusioned with her mesiah???? LOL
 
Joined
Feb 28, 2009
Messages
12,404
Reaction score
1,936
Points
0
Ever notice that these type of threads don't attract any of the FLAMING LIBERALS to them. No response, the silence from them is deafening on this issue- could it be that they just don't know how to respond to the FACTS AND TRUTH of this issue?
"If we ignore it, it will just go away."
 
OP
M

Maple

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
4,674
Reaction score
568
Points
48
From the link- do you see the arrogance here????? PiP Sqeak Waxman questioning the CEO's of companies on this issue. This should prove quite entertaining as CEO's are NOT stupid, PIP squeaks are. LOLOLOLOLOL

Waxman's demands came Friday in letters to several executives. "After the president signed the health care reform bill into law, your company announced that provisions in the law could adversely affect your ability to provide health insurance," Waxman wrote to Randall Stephenson, chairman and CEO of AT&T. A few hours before Waxman sent his letter, AT&T announced it will take a $1 billion charge against earnings because of the tax provision in the new health bill. AT&T also said it will be "evaluating prospective changes" to its health care benefits for all workers.

Waxman's letter suggests he does not accept the company's decision. "The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern," Waxman wrote to Stephenson, in addition to letters to Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg, Caterpillar CEO James Owens, and Deere & Company CEO Samuel Allen. The companies' decisions, Waxman wrote, "appear to conflict with independent analyses."

A note to Waxman- do you think your so-called INDEPENDENT analysis could be wrong, kind of like GARBAGE IN AND GARBAGE out?? Say it isn't soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo President Obama. LOL
 
Last edited:

Gatekeeper

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
2,004
Reaction score
369
Points
48
Location
New Jersey
Ever notice that these type of threads don't attract any of the FLAMING LIBERALS to them. No response, the silence from them is deafening on this issue- could it be that they just don't know how to respond to the FACTS AND TRUTH of this issue??? LOLOLOLOL

In fact, since (Jillian) found out that kids with pre-exisitng conditions are not covered until 2014, she has not made a show on these boards. Could it be that she is dissolusioned with her mesiah???? LOL
Yes, I have noticed, and I even bought two 'Miracle Ears", still hear nothing, and a special pair of blogging glasses, just in case they are responding with white font on a whilte background. :lol:

The strong arming of this administration is a damn disgrace. Waxman, another Obama kiss-ass, keeping Chicago style politics......well......alive........at least until the next election. The hopefully they can be all tossed out on their collective butts, and sign up for ObamaCare. :lol:
 
OP
M

Maple

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
4,674
Reaction score
568
Points
48
Ever notice that these type of threads don't attract any of the FLAMING LIBERALS to them. No response, the silence from them is deafening on this issue- could it be that they just don't know how to respond to the FACTS AND TRUTH of this issue??? LOLOLOLOL

In fact, since (Jillian) found out that kids with pre-exisitng conditions are not covered until 2014, she has not made a show on these boards. Could it be that she is dissolusioned with her mesiah???? LOL
Ever notice that these type of threads don't attract any of the FLAMING LIBERALS to them. No response, the silence from them is deafening on this issue- could it be that they just don't know how to respond to the FACTS AND TRUTH of this issue??? LOLOLOLOL

In fact, since (Jillian) found out that kids with pre-exisitng conditions are not covered until 2014, she has not made a show on these boards. Could it be that she is dissolusioned with her mesiah???? LOL
Yes, I have noticed, and I even bought two 'Miracle Ears", still hear nothing, and a special pair of blogging glasses, just in case they are responding with white font on a whilte background. :lol:

The strong arming of this administration is a damn disgrace. Waxman, another Obama kiss-ass, keeping Chicago style politics......well......alive........at least until the next election. The hopefully they can be all tossed out on their collective butts, and sign up for ObamaCare. :lol:

The libs are speechless when confronted with the TRUTH. :lol::lol: Otherwise they would be here in droves defending their mesiah. :lol::lol:

Yoo-hoooooooooooooo Jillian where oh where art thou. Maggie Mae- where or where art you, Right winger where are you?, Del where are you? Young lefty- no response to this???? Who else are we looking for? oh how could I forget curve light, C'mon guys, It's just no fun unless you are willing to play the game, where's your response to these facts.:lol::lol::lol: Are you dumbstruck????:lol::lol::lol:
 
OP
M

Maple

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
4,674
Reaction score
568
Points
48
Geese- not even the thumb suckers are showing up for this debate. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
 

Zoom-boing

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2008
Messages
25,764
Reaction score
7,800
Points
350
Location
East Japip
From the link- do you see the arrogance here????? PiP Sqeak Waxman questioning the CEO's of companies on this issue. This should prove quite entertaining as CEO's are NOT stupid, PIP squeaks are. LOLOLOLOLOL

Waxman's demands came Friday in letters to several executives. "After the president signed the health care reform bill into law, your company announced that provisions in the law could adversely affect your ability to provide health insurance," Waxman wrote to Randall Stephenson, chairman and CEO of AT&T. A few hours before Waxman sent his letter, AT&T announced it will take a $1 billion charge against earnings because of the tax provision in the new health bill. AT&T also said it will be "evaluating prospective changes" to its health care benefits for all workers.

Waxman's letter suggests he does not accept the company's decision. "The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern," Waxman wrote to Stephenson, in addition to letters to Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg, Caterpillar CEO James Owens, and Deere & Company CEO Samuel Allen. The companies' decisions, Waxman wrote, "appear to conflict with independent analyses."

A note to Waxman- do you think your so-called INDEPENDENT analysis could be wrong, kind of like GARBAGE IN AND GARBAGE out?? Say it isn't soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo President Obama. LOL
He doesn't accept the company's decision? Decision? It's facts and numbers . . . what 'decision' is he talking about? Did the leftists who passed this monstrosity really, truly think that if they gave 'just the right' information to the CBO and the CBO came out with a 'giddy picture' that all was as it seems? Just say it and it will be that way in the real world? What part of 'we can't afford this' do they not get?
 
Last edited:

Bfgrn

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
16,829
Reaction score
2,492
Points
245
I see the pea brains are having a tantrum convention...maybe you can all pledge to Monica Lewinsky your authority figures...the god like CEO's...

The corporatocracy, the entitled class is miffed, the taxpayer's tit (OUR $$$), SOCIALISM, they were given by Bush and the Republicans, double dipping corporate welfare is being cut...


AT&T (T), Caterpillar (CAT), Deere (DE), and Verizon (VZ) garnered headlines last week (and an unwelcome summons to Capitol Hill) for announcing that a provision in the recent health care legislation would result in substantial accounting write downs. AT&T, for example, told the SEC that it expects to take a $1 billion charge in the first quarter because the law eliminates a tax subsidy for providing prescription drug coverage to retirees. According to the Wall Street Journal, Credit Suisse estimates that the total accounting hit for corporate America will total $4.5 billion.

Citing these impacts, a Wall Street Journal editorial denounced the provision as “a wholesale destruction of wealth and capital.” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, in contrast, praised it as “closing a loophole.”

Who’s right?

To figure that out, I spent a lovely Saturday afternoon tracking through the intersection of health policy, tax policy, and financial accounting and emerged with a clear verdict: Gibbs is right. The provision does indeed close a tax loophole.

But the WSJ isn’t entirely completely wrong. The first law of loopholes is that every loophole benefits someone. If you close a loophole, someone will be hurt. That’s what happening here. The extra subsidy for retiree prescription drug coverage provided an extra financial boost for AT&T, Caterpillar, et al. Eliminating the loophole will thus reduce the value of the companies and the wealth of their shareholders, just as the WSJ alleges. But it’s hard to get too teary-eyed since that value and wealth were created by the loophole in the first place.

And now to the details:

Health policy. In 2003, the Medicare Modernization Act added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. Some employers already provided prescription drug coverage to their retirees, and Congress worried that they would stop these programs and move all those people onto the government nickel. Congress thus created a subsidy to encourage employers to maintain those benefits. The government pays 28% of the cost of qualifying prescription drug coverage for employer-provided prescription drug coverage for retirees who are at least 65. Nothing in the new health legislation would change that.

Tax policy. Congress had to make two decisions in creating this subsidy.

* First, would the subsidy be treated as taxable income to recipients? Quite reasonably, Congress answered no.

* Second, would for-profit employers still be able to deduct from their taxable income any spending on retiree prescription drug coverage that was covered by the subsidy? For reasons I don’t understand, Congress answered yes. As a result, the AT&Ts of the world could spend $100 on coverage, receive a $28 subsidy, and still deduct $100 in expenses from its income for tax purposes (rather than, say, $72).

In my view, the first decision—subsidies aren’t taxable—makes sense because it treats all employers equally. For-profit firms, non-profit organizations, and state and local governments would all receive the same 28% incentive to maintain retiree coverage. If that subsidy were taxable then either (a) we would have to extend income taxation to non-profits and state and local governments or (b) the subsidy would be smaller for for-profit employers. Neither of those makes sense.

The second decision—for-profit firms can deduct even those expenses that are covered by the subsidy—appears peculiar for the same reason. That provision—which I characterize as a loophole—means that the subsidy is actually more valuable to for-profit firms than to other types of employers. They get the subsidy (without paying taxes on it) and they get the tax benefit of writing off those expenses. As the Joint Committee on Taxation recently noted, that treatment is highly unusual. In my view, it’s right that the recent health legislation closed that loophole.

Financial accounting. This change doesn’t actually go into effect until 2013. So why all the hullabaloo now? Two words: accrual accounting. Corporations must report the cost of future retiree health benefits as liabilities on their balance sheets. The associated tax subsidies show up as corresponding assets. The value of those tax assets got slashed by the new health legislation. Firms have to report that hit in the quarter in which the law was signed. That’s why we’ve seen this rash of announcements warning shareholders of a surprise hit to first quarter profits. The charges are non-cash at this point—no money is going out the door of these firms just yet—but will turn into real cash (i.e., higher tax payments) in the future.

Note: Another important question is how eliminating the loophole will affect the number of retirees who get drug coverage from their previous employer. Presumably the number will go down, but I haven’t seen any estimates of how much.

Disclosure: I have no investments in AT&T, Caterpillar, Deere, or Verizon.

Tax Loopholes, Wealth Destruction and Healthcare Reform -- Seeking Alpha
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
50,337
Reaction score
10,052
Points
0
I see the pea brains are having a tantrum convention...maybe you can all pledge to Monica Lewinsky your authority figures...the god like CEO's...

The corporatocracy, the entitled class is miffed, the taxpayer's tit (OUR $$$), SOCIALISM, they were given by Bush and the Republicans, double dipping corporate welfare is being cut...


AT&T (T), Caterpillar (CAT), Deere (DE), and Verizon (VZ) garnered headlines last week (and an unwelcome summons to Capitol Hill) for announcing that a provision in the recent health care legislation would result in substantial accounting write downs. AT&T, for example, told the SEC that it expects to take a $1 billion charge in the first quarter because the law eliminates a tax subsidy for providing prescription drug coverage to retirees. According to the Wall Street Journal, Credit Suisse estimates that the total accounting hit for corporate America will total $4.5 billion.

Citing these impacts, a Wall Street Journal editorial denounced the provision as “a wholesale destruction of wealth and capital.” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, in contrast, praised it as “closing a loophole.”

Who’s right?

To figure that out, I spent a lovely Saturday afternoon tracking through the intersection of health policy, tax policy, and financial accounting and emerged with a clear verdict: Gibbs is right. The provision does indeed close a tax loophole.

But the WSJ isn’t entirely completely wrong. The first law of loopholes is that every loophole benefits someone. If you close a loophole, someone will be hurt. That’s what happening here. The extra subsidy for retiree prescription drug coverage provided an extra financial boost for AT&T, Caterpillar, et al. Eliminating the loophole will thus reduce the value of the companies and the wealth of their shareholders, just as the WSJ alleges. But it’s hard to get too teary-eyed since that value and wealth were created by the loophole in the first place.

And now to the details:

Health policy. In 2003, the Medicare Modernization Act added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. Some employers already provided prescription drug coverage to their retirees, and Congress worried that they would stop these programs and move all those people onto the government nickel. Congress thus created a subsidy to encourage employers to maintain those benefits. The government pays 28% of the cost of qualifying prescription drug coverage for employer-provided prescription drug coverage for retirees who are at least 65. Nothing in the new health legislation would change that.

Tax policy. Congress had to make two decisions in creating this subsidy.

* First, would the subsidy be treated as taxable income to recipients? Quite reasonably, Congress answered no.

* Second, would for-profit employers still be able to deduct from their taxable income any spending on retiree prescription drug coverage that was covered by the subsidy? For reasons I don’t understand, Congress answered yes. As a result, the AT&Ts of the world could spend $100 on coverage, receive a $28 subsidy, and still deduct $100 in expenses from its income for tax purposes (rather than, say, $72).

In my view, the first decision—subsidies aren’t taxable—makes sense because it treats all employers equally. For-profit firms, non-profit organizations, and state and local governments would all receive the same 28% incentive to maintain retiree coverage. If that subsidy were taxable then either (a) we would have to extend income taxation to non-profits and state and local governments or (b) the subsidy would be smaller for for-profit employers. Neither of those makes sense.

The second decision—for-profit firms can deduct even those expenses that are covered by the subsidy—appears peculiar for the same reason. That provision—which I characterize as a loophole—means that the subsidy is actually more valuable to for-profit firms than to other types of employers. They get the subsidy (without paying taxes on it) and they get the tax benefit of writing off those expenses. As the Joint Committee on Taxation recently noted, that treatment is highly unusual. In my view, it’s right that the recent health legislation closed that loophole.

Financial accounting. This change doesn’t actually go into effect until 2013. So why all the hullabaloo now? Two words: accrual accounting. Corporations must report the cost of future retiree health benefits as liabilities on their balance sheets. The associated tax subsidies show up as corresponding assets. The value of those tax assets got slashed by the new health legislation. Firms have to report that hit in the quarter in which the law was signed. That’s why we’ve seen this rash of announcements warning shareholders of a surprise hit to first quarter profits. The charges are non-cash at this point—no money is going out the door of these firms just yet—but will turn into real cash (i.e., higher tax payments) in the future.

Note: Another important question is how eliminating the loophole will affect the number of retirees who get drug coverage from their previous employer. Presumably the number will go down, but I haven’t seen any estimates of how much.

Disclosure: I have no investments in AT&T, Caterpillar, Deere, or Verizon.

Tax Loopholes, Wealth Destruction and Healthcare Reform -- Seeking Alpha
Do you ever think an original thought or just regurgitate?
 

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
55,333
Reaction score
17,216
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
I'm betting that Waxman will open the hearings with a quote something like this:

"Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between capitalistic free marketism and Democratism. The modern champions of capitalism have selected this as the time, and ladies and gentlemen, the chips are down — they are truly down."
 

Bfgrn

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
16,829
Reaction score
2,492
Points
245
I see the pea brains are having a tantrum convention...maybe you can all pledge to Monica Lewinsky your authority figures...the god like CEO's...

The corporatocracy, the entitled class is miffed, the taxpayer's tit (OUR $$$), SOCIALISM, they were given by Bush and the Republicans, double dipping corporate welfare is being cut...


AT&T (T), Caterpillar (CAT), Deere (DE), and Verizon (VZ) garnered headlines last week (and an unwelcome summons to Capitol Hill) for announcing that a provision in the recent health care legislation would result in substantial accounting write downs. AT&T, for example, told the SEC that it expects to take a $1 billion charge in the first quarter because the law eliminates a tax subsidy for providing prescription drug coverage to retirees. According to the Wall Street Journal, Credit Suisse estimates that the total accounting hit for corporate America will total $4.5 billion.

Citing these impacts, a Wall Street Journal editorial denounced the provision as “a wholesale destruction of wealth and capital.” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, in contrast, praised it as “closing a loophole.”

Who’s right?

To figure that out, I spent a lovely Saturday afternoon tracking through the intersection of health policy, tax policy, and financial accounting and emerged with a clear verdict: Gibbs is right. The provision does indeed close a tax loophole.

But the WSJ isn’t entirely completely wrong. The first law of loopholes is that every loophole benefits someone. If you close a loophole, someone will be hurt. That’s what happening here. The extra subsidy for retiree prescription drug coverage provided an extra financial boost for AT&T, Caterpillar, et al. Eliminating the loophole will thus reduce the value of the companies and the wealth of their shareholders, just as the WSJ alleges. But it’s hard to get too teary-eyed since that value and wealth were created by the loophole in the first place.

And now to the details:

Health policy. In 2003, the Medicare Modernization Act added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. Some employers already provided prescription drug coverage to their retirees, and Congress worried that they would stop these programs and move all those people onto the government nickel. Congress thus created a subsidy to encourage employers to maintain those benefits. The government pays 28% of the cost of qualifying prescription drug coverage for employer-provided prescription drug coverage for retirees who are at least 65. Nothing in the new health legislation would change that.

Tax policy. Congress had to make two decisions in creating this subsidy.

* First, would the subsidy be treated as taxable income to recipients? Quite reasonably, Congress answered no.

* Second, would for-profit employers still be able to deduct from their taxable income any spending on retiree prescription drug coverage that was covered by the subsidy? For reasons I don’t understand, Congress answered yes. As a result, the AT&Ts of the world could spend $100 on coverage, receive a $28 subsidy, and still deduct $100 in expenses from its income for tax purposes (rather than, say, $72).

In my view, the first decision—subsidies aren’t taxable—makes sense because it treats all employers equally. For-profit firms, non-profit organizations, and state and local governments would all receive the same 28% incentive to maintain retiree coverage. If that subsidy were taxable then either (a) we would have to extend income taxation to non-profits and state and local governments or (b) the subsidy would be smaller for for-profit employers. Neither of those makes sense.

The second decision—for-profit firms can deduct even those expenses that are covered by the subsidy—appears peculiar for the same reason. That provision—which I characterize as a loophole—means that the subsidy is actually more valuable to for-profit firms than to other types of employers. They get the subsidy (without paying taxes on it) and they get the tax benefit of writing off those expenses. As the Joint Committee on Taxation recently noted, that treatment is highly unusual. In my view, it’s right that the recent health legislation closed that loophole.

Financial accounting. This change doesn’t actually go into effect until 2013. So why all the hullabaloo now? Two words: accrual accounting. Corporations must report the cost of future retiree health benefits as liabilities on their balance sheets. The associated tax subsidies show up as corresponding assets. The value of those tax assets got slashed by the new health legislation. Firms have to report that hit in the quarter in which the law was signed. That’s why we’ve seen this rash of announcements warning shareholders of a surprise hit to first quarter profits. The charges are non-cash at this point—no money is going out the door of these firms just yet—but will turn into real cash (i.e., higher tax payments) in the future.

Note: Another important question is how eliminating the loophole will affect the number of retirees who get drug coverage from their previous employer. Presumably the number will go down, but I haven’t seen any estimates of how much.

Disclosure: I have no investments in AT&T, Caterpillar, Deere, or Verizon.

Tax Loopholes, Wealth Destruction and Healthcare Reform -- Seeking Alpha
Do you ever think an original thought or just regurgitate?
Here's an original thought...you are a phony author that uses Glenn Beck's paranoia conspiracies as a 'secret' source and of course you are a right wing pea brain...
 

Zoom-boing

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2008
Messages
25,764
Reaction score
7,800
Points
350
Location
East Japip
Financial accounting. This change doesn’t actually go into effect until 2013. So why all the hullabaloo now? Two words: accrual accounting. Corporations must report the cost of future retiree health benefits as liabilities on their balance sheets. The associated tax subsidies show up as corresponding assets. The value of those tax assets got slashed by the new health legislation. Firms have to report that hit in the quarter in which the law was signed. That’s why we’ve seen this rash of announcements warning shareholders of a surprise hit to first quarter profits. The charges are non-cash at this point—no money is going out the door of these firms just yet—but will turn into real cash (i.e., higher tax payments) in the future.



Tax Loopholes, Wealth Destruction and Healthcare Reform -- Seeking Alpha

I'm seeing this along the same lines as congress taxing 10 years for 6 years worth of use. Upfront it isn't as it seems but in the end, the price will have to be paid. Who will end up paying that price? Us.
 

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
55,333
Reaction score
17,216
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
Here's an original thought...you are a phony author that uses Glenn Beck's paranoia conspiracies as a 'secret' source and of course you are a right wing pea brain...

You poor widdle boobie.

That's not an original thought - that is part of the DNC talking points.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top