You are not logged in. Please register or login.

Gunslinger
 Rep: 88 

Re: ABC News = Government Agency

Gunslinger wrote:
PaSnow wrote:

Admittedly I'm not a big fan of this decision, as I don't like the path it sets for going forward, but Guns I think you overreacting. A horrible mistake for voting him in?!  Our economy was in chaos in September as companies were falling apart left & right, no banks were able to make any loans, not just to home buyers, but tio businesses as well, there was no money. Again, there was no money. Sure you can complain about what he did to rescue it, but what were the alternatives. Would letting them all fail be an option. Would 15% unemployment be an option?  Would a Dow at 3,000 be an option?

Sure you might be against government getting into our healthcare business. Gitmo is just a new partisan crock of shit like flag burning & abortion. The tax break worked great for me, not sure how much you make to have had a $10 increase but I got my $15 break. That's why I voted for him. Also made quite a few thousand back in my 401k too. A win-win scenario in a way. So yeah, I'm content, and feel he's doing an alright job. Do I agree wholeheartedly with this? Probably not. ABC will likely take some heat for it & their credibility may suffer a bit too. I can't imagine it's related, but it's funny, the ABC channel here has struggled a bit because alot of viewers cannot get that channel over the air ever since the DTV conversion. So they're probably not winning over alot of peoples hearts right here anyway.

Anyway, how about this for an idea, we watch the segment (or wait for it to air) to see exactly what it is first. After all, it's possible it's just a town hall. I do wish it was made available to all networks, and I feel it should have been. THAT is my problem with it. It's possible the Republican Ken McKay is just grandstanding and shooting first, asking questions later. After all, it seems even he doesn't even know what it will be

"I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda."

I don't disagree at all that we needed Bush OUT!!  I'm saying that Obama wasn't a good choice, that's all.  He is NOT doing the great things many of you think.  There WERE a few upswings in the housing market and such but that was by pumping "fake money" into the economy which basically came from China.  I don't want this to happen (let me be very clear on that) but I do believe the economy will start getting worse again as this type of "fix" was a very short termed type of repair.  It wasn't thought out well.  Gitmo I respectfully disagree with and I can assure you it's not bipartisan based.  In fact the best person we could have had as commander in chief was indeed a democrat...just not THIS ONE.  I do not vote based on party.  The problem with Gitmo is we closed an idea LOCATION that served the purpose we needed.  How many of those held released went back to terrorism?  Does that not show a problem?  I think paying 200,000,000 to others to now house some of these thugs is a strikingly pathetic thing to do as well.  I'd love to hear how this is a good move. 

Now the tax breaks.  You say you got a 15.00 break?  How the hell does that help you more than the 600.00 refund you would have got?  This is not meant as a punch to you at all but I can tell you right now that 600.00 at once helps me quite a bit more than 15 bucks a paycheck...which I do not get by the way.

As far as the "wait and see" about the ABC segment you're missing the very point.  I already know how I feel about this health care plan.  I work in health care and I know the flaws (which are HUGE and very unfair to working families, trust me on this one) that exist and arise when the government controls any aspect of health care.  My point is ABC is allowing this to be a media pushed, one-sided, non-debated push for what Obama wants...even though the American people and congress have NOT been in favor of it. 

You seem intelligent to me PaSnow so let's be totally honest...there is quite a large sector of the general public (quite a few who always get the handouts at the benefit of we that work) who are easily influenced by the media.  This type of "favortisim" by the network is totally unacceptable.

All you guys have did a great job voicing your opinions in an intelligent manner, I commend you.  If I seem at all angered by this please do not take it in a personal way.  I am just very passionate about the "fleecing of America".  If people continue to say "this isn't a big deal" everytime something like this happens it becomes a snowball effect.  In other words these "small" things added together end up not being so small at all.

It's not a bad thing to be pro-Obama because in the end he IS our president. For that very reason I sincerely WANT him to succeed.  However to do this he must make rational decisions, these things mentioned (not so much the tax "break" by any means, that is minor in comparison to the other things) are not rational.

PaSnow wrote:

...if it's not broke, don't fix it. People are fairly satisified with our current healthcare, so why change it. And the gov't hiring way too many employees to do nothing, like City Hall. One fear I'd have is privatized/better healthcare would go the way of the pension, ie non-existant. As small to medium sized companies would no longer offer healthcare benefits, opting to sway it's employees onto the gov't run system. Then later, large companies as well. And lastly, abusing the system. Like welfare, we'd have the poor abusing it, going 7-8 times a year for a checkup, doctors billing the gov't $500 for a checkup on welfare people who don't even work to contribute. I used to work in cutomer service for the electric company here, & I saw the amount used by those people who didn't pay. A/C must have run non-stop. Heat on high all day in the winter. How's that fair when I keep my bills low, try not to use A/C, keep my heat on at 65-67.. ?

I agree and this is a HUGE concern.  Now many of the poor who have worked for a living generally are conservative and won't abuse these things but you have many SLOBS who abuse the system.  Many people CHOOSE not to work by finding a way to "beat the system" at tax-payers expense.  Nationalize healthcare and YOUR healthcare will suffer, GREATLY.  We have the greatest health care in the entire WORLD...it's NOT broke.

Let's consider another point.  How many of the 50,000,000 uninsured people CHOOSE to spend this money elsewhere??  I have a friend who drives a 40k car but doesn't have insurance!  His company does indeed offer it for a fair price but he chooses NOT to buy it.  Great priorities.

Now add the people who would rather buy cigarettes at six bucks a pack or alcohol, drugs or whatever instead of paying for insurance and I assure you that 50 million number becomes quite a bit different.  With Obama's great idea have fun making sure we pay for these people to enjoy what we had to WORK HARD to get.  Good 'ol Robin Hood...oh sorry, Obama strikes again.

PaSnow
 Rep: 200 

Re: ABC News = Government Agency

PaSnow wrote:

I agreed with you in part on the ABC deal. Personally, I just think all networks should be allowed to air anything political. This isn't the NFL or the Grammys here. However the reason I said wait & see is because the one who said "opposing views will be excluded" is the author, Matt Drudge. With no source. The ABC News rep states there will be opposing views, in what seems a Q&A session. Granted, they'll be plants, but the questions will be asked & answers to opposing views given.

As for Gitmo, yeah, it's great. Lock up terrorists. Now, how about the people tehre who weren't terrorists. The many who's cousins or brothers were involved, but they likely aren't. And they had no idea of their whereabouts or actions & involvement. Yet the were locked up for years. That's the whole fucking problem with it, it was shoot now, ask questions later. Guilty until proven innocent. There was very little method to the madness if you read up on it. The whole problem with the Bush/Cheney international affairs condensed into one plot of land on an island.

Healthcare I already went over. And the $600 was a periodical thing Bush did once. And $300 in 2002. Not something implemented year after year. I firmly believe it's more beneficial to the economy to give $15/paycheck than one lump sum ($390) at once. When people get it lump sum, they blow it all at once. Most probably 1 big item, or pay off their credit card bills. However, if they get $15/pychk, they'll get pizza more, buy beer more, goto the movies more, buy clothes more. A better way to create jobs than everyone in May getting their check & blowing it, then in June going back to their old ways.

Gunslinger
 Rep: 88 

Re: ABC News = Government Agency

Gunslinger wrote:

Gitmo needed to be refined, not closed.  No argument changes needed to be made.  I don't need to "read up on it" there were problems but also benefits.  Obama's "all or nothing" approach is my disagreement.

The 600.00 rebate was actually going to be given this year before Obama changed it.  I don't know about those who "blow" it but some of us like to keep money in savings and not touch it unless necessary.  Therefore things like home repairs can be aided by the rebate which we EARNED and was not a handout.  But as I ALSO mentioned already this was by far the least of my quarrels.   

Networks airing political information happens all the time PaSnow, what we are dealing with is one man's personal agenda...that's the problem.

PaSnow
 Rep: 200 

Re: ABC News = Government Agency

PaSnow wrote:
Gunslinger wrote:

Networks airing political information happens all the time PaSnow, what we are dealing with is one man's personal agenda...that's the problem.

I may be wrong, but I think this is the first Presidential session aired only on one network. Normally, speeches, adresses etc are open to all. Again, I could be wrong, but I don't think it's been done. That's what I don't like.

As far as one man's agenda, he's the President. Every speech, state of the Union address etc is their agenda. George Bush gave a speech on his "agenda". We then went to war with Iraq. I'd prefer healthcare.

Gunslinger
 Rep: 88 

Re: ABC News = Government Agency

Gunslinger wrote:

I don't believe you are wrong.  I simply meant that the "political informaton" part is fine it's the manner (control by Obama and the White House officials) in which it is being done and the favortism to his personal agenda (by the  ABC media) that I have a problem with. News channels always report politics but don't "turn over the driver's seat" to the government...this is supposed to be AMERICA, remember?  I don't like it either PaSnow, it's not the way to go about this.  We are in total agreement on this part.

You mentioned Bush's agenda for the war with Iraq...it wasn't privatized to one network.  HUGE difference.  Did we make the wrong move, probably so.  However 95% of the country was behind this move AT THE TIME.  I'm not by any means defending Bush, he made TONS of mistakes but the "I'd prefer healthcare" statement, while being a good one-liner, is not a fair comparison.   

The cost and ideology behind this plan is insane and the "controlling the media" to push it is equally as disturbing.

Tommie
 Rep: 67 

Re: ABC News = Government Agency

Tommie wrote:

More from drudge:


ABC REFUSES OPPOSITION ADS DURING WHITE HOUSE SPECIAL
Wed Jun 17 2009 15:15:00 ET

ABC is refusing to air paid ads during its White House health care presentation, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, including a paid-for alternative viewpoint!

The development comes a day after the network denied a request by the Republican National Committee to feature a representative of the party's views during the Obama special.

Conservatives for Patients Rights requested the rates to buy a 60-second spot immediately preceding 'Prescription for America'.

Statement from Rick Scott, chairman of Conservatives for Patients Rights:

"It is unfortunate - and unusual - that ABC is refusing to accept paid advertising that would present an alternative viewpoint for the White House health care event. Health care is an issue that touches every American and all potential pieces of legislation have carried a pricetag in excess of $1 trillion of taxpayers' money. The American people deserve a healthy, robust debate on this issue and ABC's decision - as of now - to exclude even paid advertisements that present an alternative view does a disservice to the public. Our organization is more than willing to purchase ad time on ABC to present an alternative viewpoint and our hope is that ABC will reconsider having such viewpoints be part of this crucial debate for the American people. We were surprised to hear that paid advertisements would not be accepted when we inquired and we would certainly be open to purchasing time if ABC would reconsider."

Developing...
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot1.htm

Axlin16
 Rep: 768 

Re: ABC News = Government Agency

Axlin16 wrote:
James Lofton wrote:

Not only is this not shocking, its only the beginning. I said when he was first elected that he would literally own all these networks by the time he runs for reelection. Media has always been in the back pocket of the government to a certain extent, but get ready for it to be taken to the extreme.

Everyone wanted the Soviet Bear, so embrace it and give it a bear hug.

Uhh... I agree. You know how much I supported Obama, and i'll give you credit on this one.

This is a bit of a jaw-dropper. Not only are the controlling a major media outlet, but then ABC is then in turn refusing to air alternative viewpoints.

That isn't socialism folks. That's flat out COMMIE. 18

Axl S
 Rep: 96 

Re: ABC News = Government Agency

Axl S wrote:

Are they airing ads or is it just a one time thing? Cause if it's just a one time conference thing that the Democrats have choise to air on ABC whats the problem? Apologies if I've completely misunderstood something here.

PaSnow
 Rep: 200 

Re: ABC News = Government Agency

PaSnow wrote:
CrashDiet wrote:

More from drudge:


ABC REFUSES OPPOSITION ADS DURING WHITE HOUSE SPECIAL
Wed Jun 17 2009 15:15:00 ET

ABC is refusing to air paid ads during its White House health care presentation, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, including a paid-for alternative viewpoint!

Again I think Drudge is misrepresenting the facts. It's a commercial free event. Which means they're not selling ANY ad time. We could call ABC & say "Hey, I want to air a Pro-Life ad" if ABC says No, they're not selling ad time, we could write a blog "ABC REFUSES to sell air time to Pro-Life group"..  Also, they state the looked to buy ad time preceding the event. I work in advertising, chances are that ad is sold already, to a repeat customer. Probably someone like Verizon or Fidelity, for alot of money. Let's say $1 million dollars (probably half that but let's keep it even). BUT, those companies give ABC $20 million throughout the course of the year. Are you really going to bump out a big client of yours, just because this group is willing to pay you a little more? (Usually double is the bump rate). So let's say this group offers to pay $2 million for the spot, yeah you'll make an extra million, but then next year Verizon will remember that and maybe take 25% of that budget you recv'd, and they'll spend it with NBC & FOX instead.. And next year, you'll only rec'v $10 or $15 million from them instead. It would NOT be a good move, to sell to a one-time client.

PaSnow
 Rep: 200 

Re: ABC News = Government Agency

PaSnow wrote:

Anyway, it wqas funny, I saw on MSNBC yesterday their top morning story was New WSJ poll says Obama poll #'s down.  Funny, that it's only a few days after ABC lands the big show. However I wouldn't say it's entirely related, and that NBC used it as sour grapes.  I think as the economy has taken a turn for the better, and people are no longer in panic mode, I don't the the drastic overhauls are going to go over very easily to the American public.People voted for change in politics, and spending a ton of our taxpayer money isn't exactly what we were hoping for. Then, this morning I saw this on yahoo. Alot of Dems have re-election in 2010, and need to listen to the public.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200906 … tico/23906

  Jim VandeHei, Mike Allen Jim Vandehei, Mike Allen   – 2 hrs 15 mins ago

President Obama's campaign for health care reform by this fall, once considered highly likely to succeed, suddenly appears in real jeopardy.

Top White House advisers, especially Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, are still privately predicting massive changes to the health care system in 2009. But for the first time, Democrats on Capitol Hill and in the administration are expressing frank worries about stronger-than-expected opposition from moderate Democrats and worse-than-expected estimates for how much the plan could cost.

Business groups, which had embraced the idea of reform and have been meeting quietly with Democrats for months in an effort to shape the legislation, now talk of spending millions of dollars to oppose the latest proposals out of Capitol Hill. And Democrats themselves are not united, with leading party figures making contradictory declarations about how far they should go to overhaul the system when deficits are soaring and prospects for an economic recovery remain cloudy.

And top Democratic officials tell POLITICO they are increasingly pessimistic about getting any more Republican votes than they did on the stimulus package, with some aides referring to the idea of a bipartisan bill as "fools' gold" — an unattainable waste of time.

“This was always going to be messy,” said a senior administration strategist. “It got messy faster and earlier than people thought. But none of it is anything that’s going to stop it.”

Emanuel is anxious for the president to sign the new law by October so that Democrats have a year to campaign on it ahead of congressional midterms, aides say. Administration officials concede the new kinks in the schedule make that harder.

It has been conventional wisdom Obama would overcome a sluggish start by congressional Democrats to win approval of his plan this fall – perhaps even backed by a notable number of Republicans. But there is growing list of reasons this conventional wisdom could be wrong:

Money troubles

Public anxiety about red ink – muted during this winter’s debate over an economic stimulus package – has come roaring back, with a Gallup Poll showing deficits and spending as the only issues where more people disapprove of Obama’s performance than approve of it.

Republicans think the “borrow and spend” issue may be the biggest single vulnerability for Obama and the Democrats in the midterm congressional elections of 2010 and the presidential year of 2012. The president’s own advisers privately agree.

That’s one of the reasons Obama is emphasizing what he calls “savings” – otherwise known as cuts – that would help pay for his plans.

That is why Democrats admit that it was a public-relations disaster this week when the Congressional Budget Office issued a report this week concluding, from a partial draft of a Senate health committee bill, that the plan would cost $1 trillion over 10 years but only provide coverage for 16 million of the estimated 50 million Americans who are uninsured.

//
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a member of the health committee, said on Fox News Thursday that he considers the CBO finding “a devastating blow to the administration’s plan.”

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) now says Democrats will need to come up with a bill that costs less than $1 trillion – but many liberals say it would be meaningless to do something that small and leave so many people still uninsured.

A Crowded Stage

Everyone has big ideas for changing the health care system – and many lawmakers have waited years, in some cases their entire careers—to put their stamp on it.

That’s why you have clashing Democratic ideas from Obama, Sen. Ted Kennedy (Mass.), Baucus, Rep. Henry Waxman (Calif.) and many others.

Democrats say they sorely miss the constant presence of Kennedy, chairman of the health committee and longtime champion of the issue, who has retreated to Massachusetts as he battles cancer.

Some worried officials say Kennedy would never have allowed the strategic blunder of submitting the incomplete health committee bill for CBO scoring, which produced estimates that have been a public-relations nightmare.

Without Kennedy to mediate Democratic infighting, Obama and his top aides are going to have to do it. But based on the lessons learned from the disastrous White House micromanaging of health care under President Bill Clinton back in 1993, Obama’s aides are holding off for now, letting Congress find its own way.

“It’s too soon to be cracking heads,” said one to administration official.

At some point they will probably have to be more immersed in the deal-making because there are many moderate Democrats who are cool to many of the ideas pushed by Obama and their congressional leaders.

False Hope

For most of this year, it has appeared that Obama and business interests were searching for common ground. But this was always somewhat of a charade. It was in the political self-interest of Obama and the business community to go through the motions of working together—even while reserving the option to go to war.

As details have emerged, business groups that had sounded supportive are suddenly openly critical, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce referring to the Senate health committee blueprint as “a dangerous proposal” in an e-mail to members.

Insurance companies see an existential threat in Obama’s plan to include an option for government coverage, even though the administration says it is not meant to drive the industry out of business. But health finance experts believe such a plan would inevitably drain dollars from the private-sector market.

It is virtually impossible to sketch out a plan that can pass a Democratic Congress – and contain some version of a public option for insurance – that will not provoke a major backlash among the best-funded business groups. This means millions of dollars in TV ads warning of government attempts to control and ration care.

Recognizing the need to woo an increasingly skeptical public, House Democrats on Friday afternoon plan to release – in conjunction with their draft health reform bill – a new pitch called “12 Ways Health Care Reform Will Help You and Your Family.”

The House Democrats’ description paints a utopian picture: lower costs, including more affordable monthly premiums, an annual cap on out-of-pocket expenses and “an end to rate increases based on preexisting conditions, age or gender”; “greater choice” and “peace of mind” so that job a life choices don’t have to be based on insurance considerations.

“No more denial of coverage for preexisting conditions like diabetes, cancer or heart disease,” a late draft of the document says. “More family doctors and nurses entering the workforce at better payment rates.”

Big bang backfire

The White House’s “big bang” theory of proposing a raft of landmark legislation all at once is giving way to fears of a “big chaos” backlash. Congressional chairmen saying that the pipes are overloaded between health-care and climate legislation – and that was before this week’s arrival of the biggest overhaul of financial regulations in 70 years.

And don’t forget Congress needs to fit in work on all of its annual spending bills and take a month off in August.

This mad rush of legislation is posing fiscal and tactical problems for Democrats.

They simply don’t have the money to change the health care system, overhaul the energy sector and increase domestic spending as part of the appropriations process – without imposing big tax increases or exploding the deficit. Something has to give. Even if they did, the gears of Congress move slowly. Any or all of these proposals could easily jam them up.

To keep the pressure on, the Democratic National Committee embarked this week on a major fundraising campaign for a “Summer Organizer Program” that will hire hundreds of staffers for Organizing for America, the new name for the Obama campaign’s grassroots organization. The plan is to build a summer grassroots campaign around health care, an effort strategists believe will later morph into Obama’s reelection army.

“Please donate whatever you can afford to support the campaign for real health care reform in 2009,” pleads an e-mail purporting to come directly from “President Barack Obama.” “The campaign to pass real health care reform in 2009 is the biggest test of our movement since the election. … To prevail, we must once more build a coast-to-coast operation ready to knock on doors, deploy volunteers, get out the facts, and show the world how real change happens in America.

The enemy smells blood

Republicans did a poor job of trying to stop the economic stimulus bill earlier this year, in part because they were confounded by a popular president with very few obvious weak spots.

Obama remains popular, and his ideas for fixing health care remain more popular than the Republican’s. But Obama’s vulnerabilities are starting to show.

Public concerns with heavy government spending are rising. A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found more people want the focus to be on deficit reduction, not new spending to boost the economy.

The public is also expressing unease with the government’s increasing role in the economy. Republicans have a lot of practice in warning voters about socialized medicine and government-mandated rationing, and the NBC-WSJ poll suggests these warnings could work again.

Republicans came out with the outlines of their own plan this week. But few will pay attention to a health care plan by the out-of-power party that has zero chance of becoming law. They know they win by Obama losing.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB