Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Democrats Admit Companies Were Correct In Warning Of Major Losses Due To ObamaCare
Flopping Aces ^ | 04-27-10 | Curt

Posted on 04/27/2010 8:18:00 AM PDT by Starman417

You recall Waxman's outrage over large companies, such as AT&T, informing its shareholders that they will be taking large hits due to ObamaCare:

After the passage of the health care reform bill, some public corporations announced the bill would have adverse affects on how they do business. Deere & Co. announced that it would cost them an additional $150M in expenses, Caterpillar stated in an SEC filing they would earn $100M less in 2010, Verizon sent emails to employees informing them of their expected costs to increase in the short term, and AT&T filed with the SEC that they expect a $1B hit because of the new law.

Now, the the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations is calling on the "senior company officials" of each of those companies, and others, to come to D.C. and explain / prove their claims. The stated purpose of this meeting is, "to ensure that the [health care] law is implemented effectively and does not have unintended consequences."

Waxman eventually canceled those hearings and now we know why. The companies were right:

When major companies declared that a provision of the new health care law would hurt earnings, Democrats were skeptical. But after investigating, House Democrats have concluded that the companies were right to tell investors and the government about the expected adverse effects of the law on their financial results.
~~~

In a memorandum summarizing its investigation, the Democratic staff of the committee said, “The companies acted properly and in accordance with accounting standards in submitting filings to the S.E.C. in March and April.”

Read more at floppingaces.net...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: achillwind; america2point0; april; bloggers; corruption; cultureofcorruption; democratcorruption; democrats; democratscandals; dnctalkingpoints; economy; healthinsurance; liberalfascism; liberalprogressivism; losses; nodebate; obama; obamacare; pravdamedia; socialistdemocrats; socialisthealthcare; tax; waxman; yellowjournalism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 last
To: BJClinton; All
"According to Pelosi all we needed to do was pass it in to law so we could see what was in it."

Photobucket

41 posted on 04/27/2010 10:19:55 AM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

Okay we lied.

We promised to tell the truth from now on. :)


42 posted on 04/27/2010 11:04:43 AM PDT by Tzimisce (No thanks. We have enough government already. - The Tick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maddogconservative
Businesses were not taxed on money they spent to provide prescription drug coverage to retired employees. How is that a subsidy? This 'subsidy' kept the retired employees covered by their employer instead of medicare part D, saving the government money.

Or, to put it another way, Obama care will tax something that is not now taxed.

43 posted on 04/27/2010 11:55:25 AM PDT by sportutegrl (I don't know where I'ma gonna go when the volcano blow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: sportutegrl

No you are confused.

Before obamacare, and after the bushcare the system was the following:

1) The American Taxpayer gave companies a 28% subsidy on the cost of their retirees’ plan.
2) The Company could deduct the entire cost of the plan from their taxes.

Obamacare is taxing the subsidy. If we are going to tax unemployment benefits, if we are going to tax Social Security benefits, then by God we should tax a subsidy to employers.

And by an accounting quirk, when a company lose a perpetual income stream, they have to write it off immediately. It doesn’t really effect the company.

For example -
Caterpillar is at a 52 week high and they took a 90 million hit with the loss of your tax dollars.


44 posted on 04/27/2010 12:28:56 PM PDT by maddogconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: AGreatPer

How many time does mac daddy lie?


45 posted on 04/27/2010 1:37:09 PM PDT by chiefqc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

Bookmark


46 posted on 04/27/2010 3:06:08 PM PDT by 1035rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

The Socialist Insaneatics have got to GO!Just look at the Insurance insanity. I have been trying to figure it out and the more I learn the worse it appears. It is simply AWFUL!


47 posted on 04/27/2010 3:33:34 PM PDT by screaminsunshine (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

It will be mandated at 9.5% of low earners incomes. Premiums over that will be subsidized by a tax credit. HAHAHAHAH!


48 posted on 04/27/2010 3:35:27 PM PDT by screaminsunshine (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

bump


49 posted on 04/27/2010 3:45:31 PM PDT by lowbridge (Rep. Dingell: "Its taken a long time.....to control the people.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maddogconservative
The “losses” were a loss of a taxpayer subsidy. Having the CEO’s complain about the loss would have sounded like a unemployed person complaining about their unemployment insurance running out.

What in the hell are you talking about here? Please explain your logic?

50 posted on 04/27/2010 3:57:56 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: chris37

Ask your local newspapes and TV/Radio stations to cover this story, or if they don’t/won’t, ask why?

Letters to the editor linking to this site would also be useful to readers.

Same for calling-in to talk radio shows.

Spread the word, even if it just means emailing it to people, esp. those in the media.


51 posted on 04/27/2010 3:59:21 PM PDT by MadMax, the Grinning Reaper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: maddogconservative

Ozero is a funny fool as are all the socialistas that pretend they are not spineless whimpering self defeatists... eh maddog?


52 posted on 04/27/2010 4:15:15 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

Noseman and the rest are all idiots who have never actually worked a day in their lives.

Heck, Noseman didn’t even officially live in the area he represents, as I remember. He rented a room in the basement of someone’s house in that district to meet the requirements.

How and why anyone would elect such a piece of human garbage is beyond me, but I look forward to the day he is thrown in jail.


53 posted on 04/27/2010 4:15:24 PM PDT by ConservativeMind (Hypocrisy: "Animal rightists" who eat meat & pen up pets while accusing hog farmers of cruelty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

So, we are now supposed to believe they *just now* realize they were lying. Ole “Taking Care of Business” never blessed a trail with a pile of cookies that big..

Freeper obscure reference point on “Taking Care of Business”..


54 posted on 04/27/2010 4:22:19 PM PDT by IamConservative (Liberty is all a good man needs to succeed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

Whenever you get a tax break, the rest of the taxpayers have to make up the difference. Renters subsidize homeowners. Childless couples subsidize Families, etc...

So, using simple accounting, we have the following:
1) Company A spends $100 on insurance for retirees.
2) US Taxpayer cuts a check to Company A for $28.
3) When it comes to tax time, Company A declares a tax deduction of $100 for the insurance expense. So lets assume company a made $5,000, their taxable income would be $4,900.

Now under the Obama plan, step 1&2 would remain the same, but step three would look like this.
3) Company A declares a tax deduction of $72 dollars ($100- 28, the actual amount of money they spent for the insurance). So for $5,000, their taxable income would be $4,928.

What Obama is doing is more in line with standard tax practices. If you move to change jobs you can write that expense off, but if your company reimburses you, you have to declare that income.


55 posted on 04/27/2010 9:10:09 PM PDT by maddogconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: maddogconservative
Whenever you get a tax break, the rest of the taxpayers have to make up the difference. Renters subsidize homeowners. Childless couples subsidize Families, etc...

We are created equal. What we do thereafter as far as success is really up to each premised upon merit not "equality" of redistribution. As well, what society chooses to subsidize e.g. marriage is premised upon societal merit.

As far as tax "breaks" -I look at these 'breaks' as paying less to government -giving less of what you rightly own -this is not subsidy.

As far as making up the "difference" -the goverment is creating this health care requirement and imposing it upon the people... Much like they now try to impose themselves with a carbon tax -cap and trade. Would you use the same arguments to suggest corporations subsidized if they as well do not pay thier "fair share" to the tyrant?

Sounds alot like class warfare premised "thats not fair" moral relative socialist arguments for redistribution of wealth under the 'social justice' banner to me and I don't buy it -principle does matter...

I do not want healthcare jammed down my throat and as such do not begrudge the private comapanies that suffer under this assault on freedom with me...

The big picture you seem to miss is all the non taxpayers being subsidized with this abortion called 'reform' -what about that? What about all the insurance companies being subsidized by mandated customers -what about that? What about all the brainless leftist bureaucrats riding desks in Washington DC -what about that subsidy?

It is real simple -your suggestion as to the companies only losing tax payer subsidy is crap on its face once you concede the fact that the supposed 'need' being subsidized is imposed by government and at its core is an unamerican socialist redistribution of wealth -much like the 'need' now being touted by Ozero and his greedy tree hugging clowns of global warming...

56 posted on 04/27/2010 10:06:54 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

help keep the NO in NOvember...

NO more idiots in government.
NO more stupid taxes.
NO more working for the company store.

teeman


57 posted on 04/28/2010 8:56:16 AM PDT by teeman8r (NO vember is coming... vote them out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson