So one of the first things Obamacare does is give $10 Billion to unions?

[HomerJS]

Correction; $10 billion is going to his homies. They need $$$ to buy white women.

Taking them from weak white men has grown to be tiresome.

Relax whitey already controlls over 90% of the wealth in this country but only 35% of population. You got lots to spare

 

[PeshakJang]

I posted last week:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2154802&highlight=unions

Sluggo also provided a link to the entire list of recipients:

http://www.wokv.com/weblogs/jamie-dupree/2011/apr/01/health-law-payments/

UAW was the largest recipient: over $200,00,000

MILLIONS to Shell Oil.
MILLIONS to JP Morgan
MILLIONS to GE (The company with a CEO that is now part of the administration, and paid zero income tax on billions in profit)
MILLIONS to BP
MILLIONS to Bank of America
MILLIONS to Citigroup

And MILLIONS more to just about every big corporation you could name.

Any corporate cronyism or corporate welfare that existed in the previous administration has been blown out of the water by the current. It's a shame so many people choose to ignore it.

 

[CLite]

WAIT WAIT WAIT. I refuse to believe anyone is so retarded as the conservative hacks in this thread.

When AT&T Claimed the new health care laws would cost them $1B. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=auDlhzXGuFjI

IT WAS BECAUSE THE NEW LAW WAS EVENTUALLY PHASING OUT THIS FUCKING SUBSIDY.

Now they entered in a stop-gap measure to continue this stupid subsidy because enough companies bitched about it until eventually phasing it out in the new plan.

NOW CONSERVATIVES ARE BITCHING ABOUT THE TEMPORARY SUBSIDY THAT WAS EXTENDED BECAUSE THEY BITCHED ABOUT THE INCREASED COST ELIMINATING THE SUBSIDY WOULD COST COMPANIES.

WTF, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills /cue zoolander.

*edit* timeline for retards
1)Obama suggests eliminating subsidy
2)Companies complain- big headlines about $1B in costs (AT&T and others)
3)Conservatives bitch that Obama is killing business
4)Obama provides coverage for subsidy until the new law is fully phased in
5)A year later conservatives with an exceeding amount of ignorance and balls start to cook up a story blaming Obama for wasting billions
6)A post is created on anandtech by either a) an idiot, or b) a partisan hack.

 

[Tom]

So this $10 billion is a tax cut ? Continued tax deduction for health insurance ?

I guess tax cuts for working people are bad.

 

[xj0hnx]

I posted last week:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2154802&highlight=unions

Sluggo also provided a link to the entire list of recipients:

http://www.wokv.com/weblogs/jamie-dupree/2011/apr/01/health-law-payments/

UAW was the largest recipient: over $200,00,000

MILLIONS to Shell Oil.
MILLIONS to JP Morgan
MILLIONS to GE (The company with a CEO that is now part of the administration, and paid zero income tax on billions in profit)
MILLIONS to BP
MILLIONS to Bank of America
MILLIONS to Citigroup

And MILLIONS more to just about every big corporation you could name.

Any corporate cronyism or corporate welfare that existed in the previous administration has been blown out of the water by the current. It's a shame so many people choose to ignore it.

Interesting how there's a few one liners from the most loyal followers, not even attempting to dispute, or negate the story, just attacking the messenger. Looking at this thread so far it's par the course, disgusting.

 

[CLite]

Interesting how there's a few one liners from the most loyal followers, not even attempting to dispute, or negate the story, just attacking the messenger. Looking at this thread so far it's par the course, disgusting.

The subsidy was extended (and PRE-DATES "Obamacare") because conservatives complained that removing it would hurt businesses. Conservatives are NOT allowed to bitch about something that they forced into legislation. Obamacare eventually eliminates this subsidy.

 

[JimW1949]

The main point of the program was not to give insurance to the millions who don't have it (even if they don't want it), or to lower costs for seniors or the poor....

OK, I'll bite, just where did you find this little tidbit of information? I would like to know more about these millions of people who don't have health care insurance, nor do they want it. Just where did this information come from? Did you just pull it out of your shorts?

 

[soulcougher73]

yep

Best corruption money can elect

It's true. But isnt it funny how its only the Dems? Oh wait..no..its not.

 

[rudeguy]

It's true. But isnt it funny how its only the Dems? Oh wait..no..its not.

oh heck no.

All of Washington is corrupt. Hell...all of politics is corrupt. There is no way that money should play into who gets elected or what laws get passed. Imagine how much better this country would be if we took the money out of Washington.

 

[PeshakJang]

WAIT WAIT WAIT. I refuse to believe anyone is so retarded as the conservative hacks in this thread.

When AT&T Claimed the new health care laws would cost them $1B. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=auDlhzXGuFjI

IT WAS BECAUSE THE NEW LAW WAS EVENTUALLY PHASING OUT THIS FUCKING SUBSIDY.

Now they entered in a stop-gap measure to continue this stupid subsidy because enough companies bitched about it until eventually phasing it out in the new plan.

NOW CONSERVATIVES ARE BITCHING ABOUT THE TEMPORARY SUBSIDY THAT WAS EXTENDED BECAUSE THEY BITCHED ABOUT THE INCREASED COST ELIMINATING THE SUBSIDY WOULD COST COMPANIES.

WTF, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills /cue zoolander.

*edit* timeline for retards
1)Obama suggests eliminating subsidy
2)Companies complain- big headlines about $1B in costs (AT&T and others)
3)Conservatives bitch that Obama is killing business
4)Obama provides coverage for subsidy until the new law is fully phased in
5)A year later conservatives with an exceeding amount of ignorance and balls start to cook up a story blaming Obama for wasting billions
6)A post is created on anandtech by either a) an idiot, or b) a partisan hack.

Hey, idiot, pay attention to what is going on.

Two different issues. They are not the same subsidy that you are referring to. Or are you suggesting that Obama went back in time and added the provision to the bill after companies started complaining... to counteract the effects of another portion of the bill.

The issue you are talking about is the change in treatment of a medicare drug subsidy enacted in 2003. Companies could deduct the entire cost of benefits they provided for their employees, along with receiving a subsidy of about 28% of costs. The new bill only allows them to deduct 72%.

The issue we are talking about now is a provision that was already written into the bill. This is not some new effort to compensate for the tax subsidy change. Why would they write a bill with one section that removes a subsidy benefit, and another part of the bill that restores it?

This handout is a direct subsidy for companies and unions to pay for insurance for retirees, before they are eligible for medicare, and before Obama's insurance-exchanges open up.

Hey... way to look like a retard though.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Two different issues.

Yep. Two completely different things.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Hey, idiot, pay attention to what is going on.

Two different issues. They are not the same subsidy that you are referring to. Or are you suggesting that Obama went back in time and added the provision to the bill after companies started complaining... to counteract the effects of another portion of the bill.

The issue you are talking about is the change in treatment of a medicare drug subsidy enacted in 2003. Companies could deduct the entire cost of benefits they provided for their employees, along with receiving a subsidy of about 28% of costs. The new bill only allows them to deduct 72%.

The issue we are talking about now is a provision that was already written into the bill. This is not some new effort to compensate for the tax subsidy change. Why would they write a bill with one section that removes a subsidy benefit, and another part of the bill that restores it?

This handout is a direct subsidy for companies and unions to pay for insurance for retirees, before they are eligible for medicare, and before Obama's insurance-exchanges open up.

Hey... way to look like a retard though.

I'd say companies should be able to deduct 100% of health care costs and receive absolutely no subsidies whatsoever.

 

[xj0hnx]

Hey, idiot, pay attention to what is going on.

Two different issues.
~snip~

Clearly you must be mistaken, I mean he did use all caps on one part of his post and that means serious bizness.

 

[nick1985]

Sounds like it's going to cover a lot of working people. Sounds good to me.

I work, how come I'm not getting jack shit?

 

[Obsoleet]

Unions were essential to increasing our quality of life. They need to be expanded and empowered as much as possible to increase our quality of life further. Too few workers are unionized (myself included). It's a major problem and the decline of unions has severely hampered the increase in wages and benefits.

The idea of hoping and praying some rich guy gives you more money is a joke. You take what you want or need, whether you're a nuclear scientist or a janitor, we all need to be united as working people.

 

[Obsoleet]

I work, how come I'm not getting jack shit?

Because people like you aren't smart enough to start or join a union? Just a question, not really intended as a slur, sir.

Also, you already got plenty from hard union fought battles. Namely you weren't in the coal mines at age 5, and you get paid better than most people in the world with decent (but not yet European level) benefits. Unions did plenty for a lot of thankless jackasses.

 

[soccerballtux]

they also get exempted from the legislation.
Along with McD and Walmart and anyone big enough to raise a stink. All the little guys no dice.

Obama's waged quite war on the middle class in his presidency.

 

[CLite]

Hey, idiot, pay attention to what is going on.

Two different issues. They are not the same subsidy that you are referring to. Or are you suggesting that Obama went back in time and added the provision to the bill after companies started complaining... to counteract the effects of another portion of the bill.

The issue you are talking about is the change in treatment of a medicare drug subsidy enacted in 2003. Companies could deduct the entire cost of benefits they provided for their employees, along with receiving a subsidy of about 28% of costs. The new bill only allows them to deduct 72%.

The issue we are talking about now is a provision that was already written into the bill. This is not some new effort to compensate for the tax subsidy change. Why would they write a bill with one section that removes a subsidy benefit, and another part of the bill that restores it?

This handout is a direct subsidy for companies and unions to pay for insurance for retirees, before they are eligible for medicare, and before Obama's insurance-exchanges open up.

Hey... way to look like a retard though.

Alright it is not the exact same subsidy but clearly not different issues. They both encourage employers to cover retiree benefits for former employees.

The new healthcare bill saved the USA $14B from drug subsidies (many conservative papers used this number on the cost to business, i.e. savings in subsidies), and republicans bitched about its cost on industry. Now there is a subsidy that amounts to $2B spent, and it looks like the program is closing, but republicans just say it's a Union bailout, when it's an extremely similar subsidy program pertaining to promoting corporations to cover their retirees. Any business can apply for the subsidy however it's obvious the UAW took advantage of the program the most.

Overall there is a $12B gap in what papers like Bloomberg say the bill saved from drug subsidies, versus what this new provision has cost. There is an obvious dichotomy here, either you support reducing subsidies to companies, or you encourage subsidies. Which is it and once you decide please stick to one party line?

 

[Tom]

I work, how come I'm not getting jack shit?

If you have health insurance and are able to take a tax deduction for the cost, or if it's provided by your employer or union and they get to deduct the cost, you are getting something.

If you don't have health insurance, or have to buy it for yourself, like I do, then you're right, we haven't been getting much. Although I think there's provisions that haven't gone into effect yet that might change that.

 

[nick1985]

Because people like you aren't smart enough to start or join a union?

HAHAHAHA, oh boy thanks for the laugh. Yeah, I'm not as "smart" as those mouth-breathing fuck-ups from AFSCME on the floor above me. lol, thanks for the chuckle.

 

[fskimospy]

HAHAHAHA, oh boy thanks for the laugh. Yeah, I'm not as "smart" as those mouth-breathing fuck-ups from AFSCME on the floor above me. lol, thanks for the chuckle.

I think you've proven that pretty handily on here.

 

[Obsoleet]

HAHAHAHA, oh boy thanks for the laugh. Yeah, I'm not as "smart" as those mouth-breathing fuck-ups from AFSCME on the floor above me. lol, thanks for the chuckle.

You do not have to be book smart, to act in your own self interest.

I'd say if your neighbors are in your opinion, stupid, then you might want to look at your life and rethink the definition of stupidity. You might end up looking at you, and people who think like you, in a different light.

 

[Nebor]

Tell that to the federal employees, like you know soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who will be getting 1/2 pay during any shutdown.

Would love to see you not cry about a 50% pay cut champ, however temporary it may be.

Er, I'm one of those soldiers. The whole thing gets a "meh" from me. Fortunately I already had a contingency plan that would allow us to keep running training next week in case the civilian range officers, clerks, etc. didn't come to work. Just goes to show the military employs too many civilians as it is.

 

[Obsoleet]

1/2 pay for the military? Thought this was a shutdown? If we're shutting down services for the poor and needy, peaceful civilians.. then why aren't the troops left without bullets and new body armor? They should start shipping home the troops now to avoid letting them get run out of the 100+ nations we occupy.

Now THAT is conservatism I could support.. not this 1/2 pay bullshit. Wanna shut down good social services and federal employees.. hit the military 100% then. I, of course, support no shutdown, as I do not hate government like so many Americans do.. our government, when we remain vigilant and invest in ourselves, has done great things.