WSJ: Commerce Secretary needs to publicly apologize to CEOs

JaJae · 04-30-2010, 07:03 AM

After the passage of ObamaCare, CEOs began major writedowns over increased costs from the legislation. Democrats claimed it was wrong of them to do so and they didn't understand the bill. ObamaCare they said wouldn't cost them money as it would lower healthcare costs

. They conducted a full on media assault attacking the CEOs of these major corporations. Well Democrats have finally read the bill it seems and they were dead wrong. The WSJ is demanding an apology from the Commerce Secretary Gary Locke for his misinformation and public attacks against these CEOs.

Another day, another never-mind ObamaCare moment. Earlier this week, House Democrats concluded that the deluge of corporate writedowns—amounting to about $3.4 billion so far—were in fact the result of ObamaCare, not the nefarious CEO conspiracy that the White House repeatedly cited when it was embarrassed soon after the bill's passage.

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke rushed to attack AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar and many others reporting losses from a tax increase on retiree drug benefits as "premature and irresponsible." He later took to these pages to denounce those who noticed these writedowns as "disingenuous" and peddling "overheated rhetoric."

Meanwhile, House baron Henry Waxman vowed to summon the offending executives to his committee because their actions "appear to conflict with independent analyses, which show the new law will expand coverage and bring down costs."

Mr. Waxman has since canceled those hearings with much less dudgeon or media fanfare, and the report from his own staffers explains his retreat. "The companies acted properly and in accordance with accounting standards in submitting filings to the SEC in March and April," they write. "These one-time charges were required by applicable accounting rules." This may stand as the first time in history that Mr. Waxman has admitted a mistake.

The larger question is what motivated the White House to unleash this assault. Democrats were amply warned about the destructive consequences of these tax changes, and if they really thought these companies were acting out of political motives, then they didn't understand what was in their own bill. Or at least that's one possibility.

More likely is that they did know and were simply trying to intimidate business and mislead the public in the early days of what was supposed to be the rapturous response to ObamaCare's passage. Instead, the public has turned even more negative on the bill as Americans discover that it won't control costs but will raise insurance premiums and taxes. No wonder Democrats want to change the subject to immigration and Goldman Sachs.

The Writedowns Revisited - WSJ.com

Donkey® · 04-30-2010, 11:23 AM

So we're supposed to feel sorry for these corporations being removed from welfare? No thanks.

JaJae · 04-30-2010, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

So we're supposed to feel sorry for these corporations being removed from welfare? No thanks.

I think you failed to comprehend the issue at hand. But yea, "fuck the man!"

Donkey® · 04-30-2010, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I think you failed to comprehend the issue at hand. But yea, "fuck the man!"

The issue at hand was these corporations were being pulled off the government tit and they threw a fit about it. I am not sure how that's me not comprehending...but whatever you need to say to make me look stupid (seems to be a theme here in the forums) go right ahead and do that.

JaJae · 04-30-2010, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

The issue at hand was these corporations were being pulled off the government tit and they threw a fit about it. I am not sure how that's me not comprehending...but whatever you need to say to make me look stupid (seems to be a theme here in the forums) go right ahead and do that.

No, they didn't throw a fit about it. They began their writedowns as they were legally entitled to do and took the proper precautionary measures to protect their companies and their employees.

Then the Democrats claimed they were wrong for doing so in an attempt to throw the public in a panic over their healthcare reform bill that was actually going to save these companies money. They attacked the CEOs of these companies throughout the media. In the end the Democrats found out they were wrong, that the companies were going to lose money, and they did in fact follow the proper procedures. And for that the WSJ is saying the CEOs deserve an apology from those who slandered them. The Democrats have admitted they were wrong, the CEOs were right. They just haven't apologized. Obviously some people wouldn't think a CEO deserves an apology for being publicly slandered... that is something they would reserve only for liberal politicians.

Donkey® · 04-30-2010, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

No, they didn't throw a fit about it. They began their writedowns as they were legally entitled to do and took the proper precautionary measures to protect their companies and their employees.

Then the Democrats claimed they were wrong for doing so in an attempt to throw the public in a panic over their healthcare reform bill that was actually going to save these companies money. They attacked the CEOs of these companies throughout the media. In the end the Democrats found out they were wrong, that the companies were going to lose money, and they did in fact follow the proper procedures. And for that the WSJ is saying the CEOs deserve an apology from those who slandered them. The Democrats have admitted they were wrong, the CEOs were right. They just haven't apologized. Obviously some people wouldn't think a CEO deserves an apology for being publicly slandered... that is something they would reserve only for liberal politicians.

The Democrats were wrong and admitted it yet we're looking for what exactly? Groveling? Financial compensation? As I pointed out, the LARGER and more important issue was the fauxrage these corporations expressed (along with their pundits and the anti-healthcare crew) about these "charges" they had to absorb because of this horrible bill...which were nothing more than the government turning off the tap of the free money they were getting in the first place. The whole thing, top to bottom, non issue...including the call for a public apology.

JaJae · 04-30-2010, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

The Democrats were wrong and admitted it yet we're looking for what exactly? Groveling? Financial compensation? As I pointed out, the LARGER and more important issue was the fauxrage these corporations expressed (along with their pundits and the anti-healthcare crew) about these "charges" they had to absorb because of this horrible bill...which were nothing more than the government turning off the tap of the free money they were getting in the first place. The whole thing, top to bottom, non issue...including the call for a public apology.

If Obama decides that tomorrow the income tax structure would no longer allow for dependents to be used for deductions of taxes owed to the government would you say the same thing? That people are just complaining about the government turning off the tap of free money they were getting in the first place?

Businesses budgeted themselves based on the current tax code. When you make huge changes in the code that can effect their bottom line by billions they need to adjust. And when they did so they were attacked by their employees and the federal government for doing so. They pointed the blame squarely where it belonged, on the bill. They would not have been in that position had the bill not made a change to their tax code. In the end they are no worse off than they were before. They will adjust their business model to still obtain the proper profit margin they had previously. It is the employees and the consumer that will feel the brunt of this. They could care less and did not deserve to slandered for acting responsibly when our government/Democrats were not.

Donkey® · 04-30-2010, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

If Obama decides that tomorrow the income tax structure would no longer allow for dependents to be used for deductions of taxes owed to the government would you say the same thing? That people are just complaining about the government turning off the tap of free money they were getting in the first place?

Businesses budgeted themselves based on the current tax code. When you make huge changes in the code that can effect their bottom line by billions they need to adjust. And when they did so they were attacked by their employees and the federal government for doing so. They pointed the blame squarely where it belonged, on the bill. They would not have been in that position had the bill not made a change to their tax code. In the end they are no worse off than they were before. They will adjust their business model to still obtain the proper profit margin they had previously. It is the employees and the consumer that will feel the brunt of this. They could care less and did not deserve to slandered for acting responsibly when our government/Democrats were not.

And they have years to fix any shortcomings or changes to their budgets before the bill is in full swing. Things change all the time in the business world that they have to adapt to...in my world, Sarbanes-Oxley was one I can think of.

As far as Obama changing the tax code...when it happens, I'll discuss it then...

JaJae · 04-30-2010, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

And they have years to fix any shortcomings or changes to their budgets before the bill is in full swing. Things change all the time in the business world that they have to adapt to...in my world, Sarbanes-Oxley was one I can think of.

As far as Obama changing the tax code...when it happens, I'll discuss it then...

Pretty sure the effects were immediate. Which is why they needed to use the write-downs. And it is also why Waxman is a jackass for threatening these CEOs with Congressional hearings for doing their jobs.

Donkey® · 04-30-2010, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Pretty sure the effects were immediate. Which is why they needed to use the write-downs. And it is also why Waxman is a jackass for threatening these CEOs with Congressional hearings for doing their jobs.

Ok, Moleman sucks...is this a huge deal really?

stolz25 · 04-30-2010, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Ok, Moleman sucks...is this a huge deal really?

This is one among many problems with the bill. I personally have no issue with cutting corporations off anything, but I do have a problem with the democrats passing the bill saying one thing and reality being another. Passing a law this big is going to have wide repercussions and they didn't even see the easy to predict ones coming. Or they lied about it. Either way it doesn't really matter.

Donkey® · 04-30-2010, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by stolz25

This is one among many problems with the bill. I personally have no issue with cutting corporations off anything, but I do have a problem with the democrats passing the bill saying one thing and reality being another. Passing a law this big is going to have wide repercussions and they didn't even see the easy to predict ones coming. Or they lied about it. Either way it doesn't really matter.

I would lean towards "lying by omission" for the most part.

But as you said, it's a huge law and SOMEONE is going to be mad about it because it affects them negatively. One has to look at the promise that it helps more people than it hurts negatively.

In this particular instance, hurting these corporations by taking them off corporate welfare is fine by me and should be fine with most people.

stolz25 · 04-30-2010, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

One has to look at the promise that it helps more people than it hurts negatively.

This is not enough to make the action right in my opinion.

However, even if you assume it is, they've promised something they have no idea about in order to pass a bill. You've bought that promise because you like the idea of universal healthcare, not because they have a track record of keeping promises or any way of predicting a positive outcome in this situation.

Donkey® · 04-30-2010, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by stolz25

This is not enough to make the action right in my opinion.

However, even if you assume it is, they've promised something they have no idea about in order to pass a bill. You've bought that promise because you like the idea of universal healthcare, not because they have a track record of keeping promises or any way of predicting a positive outcome in this situation.

What you and others don't seem to remember is that I said I did have issues with this law...my issues were different than yours...but I still had issues. It wasn't exactly what I wanted but it was SOMETHING...and it was a STEP in the right direction in my opinion.

JaJae · 04-30-2010, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

What you and others don't seem to remember is that I said I did have issues with this law...my issues were different than yours...but I still had issues. It wasn't exactly what I wanted but it was SOMETHING...and it was a STEP in the right direction in my opinion.

Right, I believed you said it didn't go far enough. Great. But that doesn't explain why you continue to defend the screw-up. Personally I could care less if these CEOs got an apology. They are public figures who mean nothing to me personally. But the Democrats did behave inappropriately and they were in the wrong. It also exemplifies there were many issues with the passing of this bill. Democrats were either wholly convinced that this would decrease insurance premiums or they were trying to deceive the public. Either way, it was wrong and the bill was passed on false pretenses. On top of that, the private sector does not need to be attacked and threatened by bully politicians who don't know what they're talking about.

The only way this bill passed was because Democrats claimed it would be good for the economy and it would lower the cost of healthcare premiums. Both statements have been proven false. Democrats at the time were either honestly mislead or voted under the guise of the lies for political protection. Either way their actions were wrong and they should not take it out on the private sector or private citizens. It was their screw up, not the CEOs of these companies. The CEOs acted responsibly in the aftermath of the passage of this bill. The Democrats did not.

stolz25 · 04-30-2010, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

It wasn't exactly what I wanted but it was SOMETHING...and it was a STEP in the right direction in my opinion.

You're only issues with it were it didn't go far enough. This doesn't refute anything at all I said in my previous post.

Donkey® · 04-30-2010, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Right, I believed you said it didn't go far enough. Great. But that doesn't explain why you continue to defend the screw-up. Personally I could care less if these CEOs got an apology. They are public figures who mean nothing to me personally. But the Democrats did behave inappropriately and they were in the wrong. It also exemplifies there were many issues with the passing of this bill. Democrats were either wholly convinced that this would decrease insurance premiums or they were trying to deceive the public. Either way, it was wrong and the bill was passed on false pretenses. On top of that, the private sector does not need to be attacked and threatened by bully politicians who don't know what they're talking about.

The only way this bill passed was because Democrats claimed it would be good for the economy and it would lower the cost of healthcare premiums. Both statements have been proven false. Democrats at the time were either honestly mislead or voted under the guise of the lies for political protection. Either way their actions were wrong and they should not take it out on the private sector or private citizens. It was their screw up, not the CEOs of these companies. The CEOs acted responsibly in the aftermath of the passage of this bill. The Democrats did not.

I defend it because it's a step towards what I would like to see. How is that not fairly understandable?

I don't give a shit about the private sector because if they can get away with screwing us, they do.

Donkey® · 04-30-2010, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by stolz25

You're only issues with it were it didn't go far enough. This doesn't refute anything at all I said in my previous post.

I didn't think I was trying to "refute" anything. I was just making a statement.

stolz25 · 04-30-2010, 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I didn't think I was trying to "refute" anything. I was just making a statement.

Then what did your statement have to do with this?

You've bought that promise because you like the idea of universal healthcare, not because they have a track record of keeping promises or any way of predicting a positive outcome in this situation.

Donkey® · 04-30-2010, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by stolz25

Then what did your statement have to do with this?

You were talking to me? I don't know what you mean...I responded to someone talking to me.

Regardless, I DID still have issues with the bill. I STILL don't agree that it's "bad" like you guys claim so I mean, there's a definite difference in our positions?