Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Should I or will somebody else take a shot at this? Go ahead, I don't feel like clubbing the retarded.
Magox Posted March 25, 2010 Author Posted March 25, 2010 And even more good news. In an email titled "President Obama Signs Health Care Legislation" sent to all employees Tuesday night, the telecom giant warned that "we expect that Verizon's costs will increase in the short term." While executive vice president for human resources Marc Reed wrote that "it is difficult at this point to gauge the precise impact of this legislation," and that ObamaCare does reflect some of the company's policy priorities, the message to workers was clear: Expect changes for the worse to your health benefits as the direct result of this bill, and maybe as soon as this year. .Mr. Reed specifically cited a change in the tax treatment of retiree health benefits. When Congress created the Medicare prescription drug benefit in 2003, it included a modest tax subsidy to encourage employers to keep drug plans for retirees, rather than dumping them on the government. The Employee Benefit Research Institute says this exclusion—equal to 28% of the cost of a drug plan—will run taxpayers $665 per person next year, while the same Medicare coverage would cost $1,209. In a $5.4 billion revenue grab, Democrats decided that this $665 fillip should be subject to the ordinary corporate income tax of 35%. Most consulting firms and independent analysts say the higher costs will induce some companies to drop drug coverage, which could affect about five million retirees and 3,500 businesses. Verizon and other large corporations warned about this outcome. U.S. accounting laws also require businesses to immediately restate their earnings in light of the higher tax burden on their long-term retiree health liabilities. This will have a big effect on their 2010 earnings. While the drug tax subsidy is for retirees, companies consider their benefit costs as a total package. The new bill might cause some to drop retiree coverage altogether. Others may be bound by labor contracts to retirees, but then they will find other ways to cut costs. This means raising costs or reducing coverage for other employees. So much for Mr. Obama's claim that if you like your coverage, you can keep it—even at Fortune 500 companies. A Verizon spokesman said the company is merely addressing employee questions about ObamaCare, not making a political statement. But these and many other changes were enabled by the support of the Business Roundtable that counts Verizon as a member. Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg's health-reform ideas are 180 degrees from Mr. Obama's, but Verizon's shareholders and 900,000 employees and retirees will still pay the price.
Fan in San Diego Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 So the intel that all of the congress had and half the world had from their own intell, is some how Bush's fault? Chef Jim was right, you are an idiot. So everyone has resorted to name calling because you got nothing else. This conversation is over.
John Adams Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 So the intel that all of the congress had and half the world had from their own intell, is some how Bush's fault? Chef Jim was right, you are an idiot. Let me ask you what I've asked others. The intel that was used to justify war was wrong. That cannot be contested by any but the most moronic. Definitely no nukes. Intel on WMDs was not right either. Not that Saddam didn't have them but he didn't have the facilities and stockpiles used to justify the attacks. Oh, and no ties to 9-11. So who got fired for that monumental intel !@#$up? Bueller...Bueller?
Adam Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 I already explained this to you, that has to do with the TRADE deficit. OK, I may not be the smartest person when it comes to economics, but if we don't have to buy energy from a foreign source, then we won't need to borrow money to buy it, doesn't that help the overall economy? Then we can give tax breaks to domestic companies for the development of usable renewable energy, vehicles that utilize this domestic energy, etc..... Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems to make sense to this simpleton.
3rdnlng Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 OK, I may not be the smartest person when it comes to economics, but if we don't have to buy energy from a foreign source, then we won't need to borrow money to buy it, doesn't that help the overall economy? Then we can give tax breaks to domestic companies for the development of usable renewable energy, vehicles that utilize this domestic energy, etc..... Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems to make sense to this simpleton. Use gasoline for example. Are you talking buying it for government vehicles or a private citizen buying it for their car?
Adam Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Use gasoline for example. Are you talking buying it for government vehicles or a private citizen buying it for their car? I would hope both
erynthered Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Let me ask you what I've asked others. The intel that was used to justify war was wrong. That cannot be contested by any but the most moronic. Definitely no nukes. Intel on WMDs was not right either. Not that Saddam didn't have them but he didn't have the facilities and stockpiles used to justify the attacks. Oh, and no ties to 9-11. So who got fired for that monumental intel !@#$up? Bueller...Bueller? You're right. No one. My point to him was????
Magox Posted March 25, 2010 Author Posted March 25, 2010 OK, I may not be the smartest person when it comes to economics, but if we don't have to buy energy from a foreign source, then we won't need to borrow money to buy it, doesn't that help the overall economy? Then we can give tax breaks to domestic companies for the development of usable renewable energy, vehicles that utilize this domestic energy, etc..... Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems to make sense to this simpleton. To answer your question, yes it would help our economy out alot if we didn't have to import as much energy as we do. A few ways to address that, strengthen the dollar, drill baby drill and continue to expand on alternative energies.
3rdnlng Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 I would hope both The government isn't buying gasoline for my vehicle, but they do buy it for their own vehicles. I would hope that they aren't borrowing to do it, but I guess since we are running a deficit, they are in fact doing that. You are confusing trade deficits with borrowing with energy independence.
erynthered Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 So everyone has resorted to name calling because you got nothing else. This conversation is over. Sorry, Billy. Please dont take your ball and go home. I still want to play!
RI Bills Fan Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 To answer your question, yes it would help our economy out alot if we didn't have to import as much energy as we do. A few ways to address that, strengthen the dollar, drill baby drill and continue to expand on alternative energies. Even though I essentially agree with everything you're saying I still get confuses by the "drill baby drill" comment. There is no Nationalized Oil Company (That I know of, anyway) in the US, so which oil company is it that drills, extracts, refines, and distributes exclusively in the US? Seriously, I want to give them my business. I refuse to purchace Citgo products because of Citgo's country of origin. Texaco Maybe?
John Adams Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 You're right. No one. My point to him was???? If it's not Bush's fault that the intel was wrong, then wasn't it his responsibility, having lead the country into a war under false pretenses to fire some people and own it?
Magox Posted March 25, 2010 Author Posted March 25, 2010 Even though I essentially agree with everything you're saying I still get confuses by the "drill baby drill" comment. There is no Nationalized Oil Company (That I know of, anyway) in the US, so which oil company is it that drills, extracts, refines, and distributes exclusively in the US? Seriously, I want to give them my business. I refuse to purchace Citgo products because of Citgo's country of origin. Texaco Maybe? Devon Energy, Apache, Chesapeake, there are lots of them. Edit: sorry, I missed the refine part.
erynthered Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 If it's not Bush's fault that the intel was wrong, then wasn't it his responsibility, having lead the country into a war under false pretenses to fire some people and own it? Would have been tough to possibly fire the entire CIA, NSA etc....what have you, no? Serious Q. Did any of the other Country's that had the same intel as we did, and more, fire any of those people? I believe alot of those other nations and us shared what intel they had, true?
Dante Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 No but Bush lied that Hussien had nuclear weapons to get the dems votes. Bush should be in jail, he has the blood of all those soldiers on his hands. Obama delayed one day before signing the healthcare bill. According to him, 15,000 people a day die from lack of healthcare. He could have save those people but he just let them die!!!!! Mass man slaughter on a scale not seen since WWII!
erynthered Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Obama delayed one day before signing the healthcare bill. According to him, 15,000 people a day die from lack of healthcare. He could have save those people but he just let them die!!!!! Mass man slaughter on a scale not seen since WWII! 4 years or 1,460 days X 15K = 21,900,000. He's going to lose alot of voters!
DC Tom Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 4 years or 1,460 days X 15K = 21,900,000. He's going to lose alot of voters! So more than two-thirds of the uninsured covered by this law would have died without it? THAT'S what I call health care reform.
3rdnlng Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 So more than two-thirds of the uninsured covered by this law would have died without it? THAT'S what I call health care reform. No, Social Security reform.
RI Bills Fan Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Devon Energy, Apache, Chesapeake, there are lots of them. Edit: sorry, I missed the refine part. Devon also explores and produces oil in select international areas such as China, Brazil, and Azerbaijan. Fail Apache has become a large multinational company, with regional offices and operations in Argentina, Australia, Canada, Egypt and UK North Sea. Fail Chesapeake... well they're pretty much exclusive to North America, but they don't produce oil, they're a natural gas company. Fail So I guess what you're telling me is that drilling in the US doesn't reduce our dependence on foriegn oil because the oil produced in the US gets sold on the world market rather than some mythical USA exclusive market. PS you also missed the distribution part. But I'll be looking for my local Devon or Apache Gas Station. They may exist but I've never seen one.
Recommended Posts