»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
What a Difference a Year Makes...
| The Alley |
|
What a Difference a Year Makes... |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
Transcript of Obama's speech at Caterpillar Posted Feb 12, 2009 @ 11:15 PM THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary Caterpillar builds the equipment that moves the earth. Your machines plow the farms that feed our families; build the towers that shape our skylines; lay the roads that connect our communities; power the trucks that deliver our goods, and more. So what's happening at this company tells us a larger story about what's happening with our nation's economy -- because, in many ways, you can measure America's bottom line by looking at Caterpillar's bottom line. Caterpillar Says That Health Care Reform Will Cost Them $100M 03/24/10 06:20 PM | AP PEORIA, Ill. — Heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar says the new health care reform law will create a $100 million drag on its first-quarter earnings because of tax law changes. The Peoria company said Wednesday that the health care overhaul President Barack Obama signed this week will reduce the tax deduction it receives for its retiree health care program. Caterpillar says even though the change won't take effect until 2011, its liabilities for retiree health care are already reflected in its financial statements. So Caterpillar expects to record an after-tax charge of $100 million in the first quarter. And the company says the tax-law change is not reflected in its already cautious 2010 profit outlook of about $2.50 per share. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/caterpillar-says-that-hea_n_512317.html In a letter Thursday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, Caterpillar urged lawmakers to vote against the plan “because of the substantial cost burdens it would place on our shareholders, employees and retirees.” |
||
| © Copyright 2010 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Let's not forget AT&T... AT&T Inc. said it would take a $1 billion charge against earnings tied to the federal health-care overhaul, joining a number of other companies in reporting an impact from the bill signed into law this week. The charges relate to prescription-drug benefits for retirees. Companies that provide this benefit, as AT&T does, receive a federal subsidy, plus they can deduct the value of this subsidy from their taxes. The health overhaul cancels the deductibility of the subsidy. It's for that reason that companies are taking a charge against earnings. [URL=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704100604575145981713658608.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Fxml%2Frss %2F3_]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704100604575145981713658608.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Fxml%2Frs s%2F3_[/URL] 7011+%28WSJ.com%3A+What%27s+News+US%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo and others..... According to reports, Verizon Communications, the second biggest U.S. phone company, told employees that tax burdens under the new law would likely filter down to employees. Verizon declined to comment. Other companies that announced health care reform related charges include Deere, a maker of farm equipment, which sees a $150 million charge for its current quarter, and Caterpillar, which warned of a $100 million charge. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
From PIMCO, the world's largest mutual fund.. March 24th, 2010 | 10:24 PM | by L. Winthorpe III | Pimco Bond Guru Bill Gross’ April 2010 Investment Outlook throws water all over Obama’s recently signed healthcare bill. Contrary to the CBO’s estimate, he says the deficit will balloon, not shrink. “Long term bondholders beware.” He wrote: The trend promises to get worse, not better. The imminent passage of health care reform represents a continuing litany of entitlement legislation that will add, not subtract, to future deficits and unfunded liabilities. No investment vigilante worth their salt or outrageous annual bonus would dare argue that current legislation is a deficit reducer as asserted by Democrats and in fact the Congressional Budget Office. Common sense alone would suggest that extending health care benefits to 30 million people will cost a lot of money and that it is being “paid for” in the current bill with standard smoke, and all too familiar mirrors that have characterized such entitlement legislation for decades. An article by an ex-CBO director in The New York Times this past Sunday affirms these suspicions. “Fantasy in, fantasy out,” writes Douglas Holtz-Eakin who held the CBO Chair from 2003–2005. Front-end loaded revenues and back-end loaded expenses promote the fiction that a program that will cost $950 billion over the next 10 years actually reduces the deficit by $138 billion. After all the details are analyzed, Mr. Holtz-Eakin’s numbers affirm a vigilante’s suspicion – it will add $562 billion to the deficit over the next decade. Long-term bondholders beware. http://wallstreetandmain.com/blog/2010/03/24/pimcos-bill-gross-disses-obamacare-itll-increase-the-deficit-not-reduce-it-long-term-bondholders-beware/ |
||
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Caterpillar Inc. of Peoria has jumped to the forefront of manufacturing companies complaining about the cost of the federal health care overhaul. On March 18 the company sent a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Representative John A. Boehner, the Republican leader, saying mandated changes would cost it “$100 million in the first year alone.” Caterpillar’s complaint led to dozens of headlines, but a closer look at the impact of the new law indicates it is not quite the budget buster that the company’s human resources executive, Gregory Folley, implied in his missive. According to a regulatory filing by the company last week, the $100 million figure is Caterpillar’s estimated total cost for as long as the newly enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act remains in effect. And the $100 million charge is an accounting change, a noncash cost that has no affect on the company’s operations. In addition, the $100 million figure does not arise from changes to decades-long practices at Caterpillar. Rather, it comes about because the new law removes a tax break codified in 2003. No company sneezes at the elimination of a $100 million tax break. But in 2008, Caterpillar had $51 billion in sales, and profits topped $3.5 billion for the third straight year. The projected profits for 2010 are a relatively weak $1.56 billion, and the $100 million tax charge would mean an additional 6 percent reduction http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/us/28cncpulse.html |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
The health-care law certainly could raise the cost of business in ways that hurt the economy, but not every change is a bad one, as critics are prone to believe. The particular tax break in question, for example, seems overly generous to companies and has always been controversial. Here’s how it used to work. Companies got a federal subsidy worth up to $1,330 per retiree to continue to offer coverage for prescription drugs. Retirees could stay on the company plan and the government wouldn’t have to shell out more money via Medicare for prescription drugs. But wait. Just like in all those late-night infomercials, there’s more. Companies also got to deduct the federal subsidy from their taxes. In effect, it was a double benefit for the company. It was sort of like the government giving every citizen a $5,000 stimulus check each year and letting them reduce their taxable income by the same amount (Sign me up!). The new law continues the subsidy for the coverage, but eliminates the tax deduction http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2010/03/26/is-health-law-already-hurting-business-maybe-maybe-not/ |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No company sneezes at the elimination of a $100 million tax break. But in 2008, Caterpillar had $51 billion in sales, and profits topped $3.5 billion for the third straight year. The projected profits for 2010 are a relatively weak $1.56 billion, and the $100 million tax charge would mean an additional 6 percent reduction In other words, Caterpillar has the money so go get it. Obama's words to Caterpillar may turn out to be very prophetic....as they go, so goes the country. The health-care law certainly could raise the cost of business in ways that hurt the economy Is this the time to hurt the economy? Isn't the economy hurting enough without it? [This message has been edited by Balladeer (03-28-2010 12:00 AM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
It sounds to me as though we are talking about cutting entitlements to profit making companies here. The regular Republican comment about this sort of stuff is that companies provide jobs, therefore it's a smart thing to do, and there's a reality to this. But I'd like to suggest that this need not be a constant state of affairs, and that at some point a decent profit-making corporation needs to acknowledge that it's doing okay and stop double-dipping. I understand the urge. But it's not welfare, it's welfare for the wealthy, which makes it a little difficult to stomach for those of us who weren't born with a silver Mercedes-Benz in our mouths. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
So you think all or many wealthy people were born into it, Bob? Believe it or not, some people actually worked for it. They created companies provide hundreds of thousands of jobs. Is the message now, "Work hard and be successful so we can take more from you"? What have those entrepreneurs done anyway...besides create the country we live in? It's interesting that you, and others, applaud going after business profits but I haven't heard a word about going after entertainment or sports. Druggies who make a hit record and get a few million get a pass. A fellow who plays a sport for a living makes 10 million a year and gets a pass. A movie producer makes hundreds of millions on a movie and gets a pass. What about lawyers? I hear nothing about these examples but going after the business that keep our economy afloat? Sure, they're fair game, especially to those who have not matched that level of success. "As goes Caterillar, so goes the country". You are more right than you know, Barack. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
It’s not a question of taking more, but rather one of why give special tax breaks to corporations already making billion dollar profits? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
“March 27 (Bloomberg) -- Representative Henry Waxman called the chief executive officers of AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc., Caterpillar Inc. and Deere & Co. to provide evidence to support costs the companies plan to book related to the new health-care law. Waxman of California, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak of Michigan released letters they wrote to the executives, saying their plans to record expenses against earnings as a result of the law contradict other estimates. The lawmakers requested the executives appear at hearing Stupak plans on April 21.” Should be an interesting hearing. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
It’s not a question of taking more..of course it is. Yes, that hearing should be very interesting. It will be interesting to see who can do the twist the best, too, as I'm sure both sides will participate in.  |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Is there some place you actually saw me say something as stupid as the words you placed in my mouth, Mike? If so, put up the silly reference and will will say I'm sorry for them. Is there someplace you heard me comment about sports and entertainment figures in some way that's as poorly put together as the chain of reasoning you've attributed to me here? It appears that you confuse me with some sort of cardboard cut-out figure of a Liberal drawn by one of the Right wing talk show folk at the end of a long session channeling Hate Speech from whatever circle of Gehenna they manage to get it from. Holy crow! A lot of those folks have access to the same accountants and lawyers that the multi-national corporations have, Mike. As for the Holywood folks, most of the money comes from banks. They last thing they want to do is put their own money into a film if they can help it. Like most of the other successful businessmen, it's all about OPM. That's Other People's Money for those who've had more significant things to do than run across that abreviation before. You don't want to risk your own in big business or investing if you can help it; ideally, you want to use OPM. That way, if you lose it, it's really not all that bad, is it? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Simple enough.. which makes it a little difficult to stomach for those of us who weren't born with a silver Mercedes-Benz in our mouths. Your "Mercedez Benz in the mouth" comment leads one to believe that you feel successful people are rich because they were born into it, not that they worked hard for it. You have had the same opportunities as anyone in the country, Bob. So have I. I'd like to have Ron's money, for example, but I didn't work hard enough for it. I acknowledge it and I acknowledge tht he DID work for it, not because he was born so privileged. I do not deny him his success nor do I feel he should be penalized for it. Is there someplace you heard me comment about sports and entertainment figures in some way that's as poorly put together as the chain of reasoning you've attributed to me here? No, Bob, you haven't. That was mys statement - that you haven't. As for the Hollywood folks, most of the money comes from banks. No doubt. The profit goes into banks, too....theirs. You can simply look at the Hollywood personalities, directors and producers who are multi-millionaires to arrive to that conclusion. I doubt that Speilburg or Lucas will be lining up for foodstamps any time soon. I think that's great! More power to them. They took the risks, put in the effort, used their brains...they deserve the fruits of their labors. Perhaps you agree with me. When it comes to businesses, though, that also took risks, put in the effort and used their brains to become successful, it appears that you believe they should be taxed more and their success makes it "difficult for you to stomach". Why is that, I wonder? at some point a decent profit-making corporation needs to acknowledge that it's doing okay and stop double-dipping. Should this apply to Hollywood and sport figures, then or just businesses like Caterpillar? You speak as though you have an idea as to what is "decent profit-making". What would that be? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Perhaps because I never said it, and that the attitude is not one I have. You need to read Jennifer's comments more closely about the nature of the tax break that's being rolled back before you make suggestions such as the one you're making. You haven't read your homework;that is why you wonder. Taxed more than whom? by the way? Do you mean the businessmen themselves being taxed or the corporations or what? If you're going to be outraged, I feel much more oriented when you can tell me what the outrage is about. quote: That's very good, once again, Mike, except once again you take me out of context. My Grammar is not all that great, but even I can tell you that in the sentence you lifted that phrase from the hyphenated "profit-making," just as did the word "decent" that immediately preceded it, modified the word "corporation." It was a "decent" Corporation I was speaking about that was also a "profit-making" corporation. It was both a "decent" and a "profit-making" corporation, Mike, sometimes known as a "decent profit-making corporation". Profit-making is not a noun here. "Corporation" is the noun here. Profit-making, because it is a thing, an abstraction, could be considered an abstract noun, but then it would have to be placed in relationship with the word corporation somehow; and as a noun it simply does not fit, does it, Mike? I guess you have accidentally taken me out of context again in a way that makes no grammatical sense, and tried to ask me a question that is a pretty silly question. It is probably answered better turned around, that would be, what is indecent profit-making? I figure the answer to that one is like the classic Supreme Court answer to the question of Obscenity — I couldn't define it for you, but I know it when I see it. Or you might try, for the Profit question, excess money with no redeeming social value. Oops, I forgot! Money's not supposed to have any notion of excess, and it should have any social value. My bad. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ah, Bob, you are a gem. There was nothing grammatically wrong with my comment and yet you spend paragraphs on it. I see a recurring theme here. Now it has been multiple times that you have used that ploy to move attention in another direction. Not that I don't appreciate your self-appointed position of grammar guru of the forum but you need a few more credentials to make it valid. As a side-note, if you had wanted decent to refer to corporation instead of profit-making, you should have separated the two adjectives with a comma. Your assumption that Ron is rich - or that I said it - is equally invalid. I simply said I would like to have his money. He could have a thousand dollars in the bank and, if I had ten, I would like to have his money. I'd appreciate your pointing out where I said the word "rich" referencing him. It is a subjective word, anyway. I'm sure you are "rich" to panhandlers on the street and yet perhaps "poor" compared to a multi-millionaire. I'm afraid, with Obama, we are going to find out what "rich" really is to him. Perhaps it is 250,000 per year. Further on, when their money runs out, it may become 150,000, then 100,000 and who knows how far it will go. You can't rob Peter to pay Paul indefinitely. Perhaps one day you, yourself, may be "rich" by Obama standards. COngratulations...you've made it to the big time. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Technically Mike you can. As long as the relative number of Peters and Pauls remains within a given range and the commodity being robbed isn’t finite. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Only if you typically use a comma rich style, Mike. The hyphenated profit-making still doesn't function as a noun when the word corporation follows, unless you can find some way of accounting for it that isn't incredibly awkward. Perhaps you can? And other possible reasons for bringing Ron into the discussion would flatter you or the facts in exactly which ways? Actually, bringing Ron into the discussion at all pushes the discussion forward in exactly which ways? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Not even a clever dodge, Bob. You claim I called Ron rich? Where did say it?. You claim I do a lot of misquoting so I'm asking....where did I say it? The fact that I used Ron's name is immaterial. I could have used the name of anyone I consider successful. Ron popped into mind so I used him. So where did I call him rich? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
OKay, Mike. You did ask for it. The discussion was an ongoing one, which we returned to again and again. You started the thought in thread #7 and, using the same language and continuing the same line, took it up again in thread # 12. If you want to wriggle about the use of the actual word “rich,” I suppose you could do that, but then you’d have to convince everybody that I meant to use that word and nothing else, and that somehow I forgot to put it in quotes, and what’s more, so did you. Good luck on that one. Also good luck on convincing folks with your business about a beggar in the street envying a guy with a ten dollar bill line as well. Anybody who disagrees is free to read the intervening threads and see if I’ve pasted together two out-of-context thoughts together. It should be as obvious to them as it was to me that I did not and thart you are simply trying to find a way out of an uncomfortable situation that you should have let drop when you had the chance to do so.: #7 So you think all or many wealthy people were born into it, Bob? Believe it or not, some people actually worked for it. They created companies provide hundreds of thousands of jobs. Is the message now, "Work hard and be successful so we can take more from you"? What have those entrepreneurs done anyway...besides create the country we live in? #12 Your "Mercedez Benz in the mouth" comment leads one to believe that you feel successful people are rich because they were born into it, not that they worked hard for it. You have had the same opportunities as anyone in the country, Bob. So have I. I'd like to have Ron's money, for example, but I didn't work hard enough for it. I acknowledge it and I acknowledge tht he DID work for it, not because he was born so privileged. I do not deny him his success nor do I feel he should be penalized for it. You’ve simply come down with another case of Hoof in Mouth, and you’re trying to blame somebody else for it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Actually, Bob, I was taking you to task for earlier comments that you have made that, if your were ever in error, you would have no problem admitting it. Obviously, that's another urban legend down the tubes. Now, to continue evading your error, you have the need to resort to personal insults, like another case of my hoof in mouth disease. Ah, well, when all else fails...insult, right, sir? |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
CAT & the others were making money on a loophole, Mike. The Gov. created the loophole, and the new admin. closed it. I thought the smack-down sounded a bit odd, so I did a tad of research. "The first law of loopholes is that every loophole benefits someone. If you close a loophole, someone will be hurt. That’s what’s 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." "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)." Loopy Stuff And people will suffer the consequences either by loss of jobs, loss of monies invested in their stocks as they will now show a decline. Which doesn't make for a happy retiree/investor. But it's a perfect example of corporate handshaking that will always look for ways to do what it's supposed to do: Make money. and the Gov. makes money when the corporations make money. Everybody looks good when jobs & stocks are up. *shrugs* I shake my head at this one. We may have seen the last of the good ol' loophole days. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I agree...and a welcome to the loopy days? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Apparently, you haven't found much to dispute in terms of my quotations and the facts, Mike, or you would have done so. If I had misspoken, I would have said so, as I have done on occasion, say, with Denise or recently with Jennifer. I don't mind saying I'm wrong to anybody when I believe I'm wrong. As for your tendency to say things that put you in this sort of position on an occasional basis, how is pointing that out an insult? — especially when you are attempting not only to pretend you haven't done so again, but are also trying to shift blame onto me for your gaffe. I didn't make it in the first place, and I didn't try to make a big production about it afterward. Now you want me to say I'm sorry for what you said, as though I'd said something out of place to start out with? And refusing to buy into that confusing tangle is supposed to be an an insult to you? I have a reasonably gymnastic mind, but I can't make it twist far enough to understand the logic of that chain of suppositions. It simply makes no sense to me. Perhaps if somebody else were to explain it, then I'd be able to follow, but I am utterly at sea. I'm sorry about that, Mike. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
