What's the truth to the assertion in a American Family Association letter my fear bound friends are circulating. It starts
"The AARP claims to be all about representing the interests of seniors, but when it comes to health care reform, they are selling seniors down the river to line their own pockets. AARP has a vested interest in seniors being driven out of Medicare Advantage into Medigap plans because AARP makes a fortune in royalty fees from Medigap plans."
I offer this because you've mentioned ASA as a GOP mouthpiece and they are sited as a alternative to AARP.
I don't know how to rebut this one.
And who is Tim Wildmon ...and why is he?
P.
patgxk140: What's the truth to the assertion in a American Family
If people are mailing torn up AARP membership cards to ASA, as your second argument states, then your first argument - that ASA can have no idea how many AARP members have quit - is false.
S1m0n: If people are mailing torn up AARP membership cards to
Actually, that would give them an EXACT number, which would only be a MINIMUM. Why not give the number of torn up cards they received? Oh, wait - that's probably a MUCH smaller number than 60,000.
ESerafina42: Actually, that would give them an EXACT number, which would
This is not a new tactic for cbs. They consistently skew their political reporting by simply not stating everything. They've done it at least 3 times I can think of in the recent months. Their white house reporter chip reid seems to have it in for the Obama admin everytime he does reporting on them. His attitude is usually belligerent or sarcastic. I've long since stopped watching them.
WinterParkMom: This is not a new tactic for cbs. They consistently
I don't find the flat tax of only marginal interest to seniors, or any other person in the bottom 90%. It is simply a ruse to shift after tax income and wealth toward the wealthy. You can't understand what's going on by looking at only how the tax affects you as an individual. You have to look at how it affects access to the entire economic pie, which is grossly shifted toward the rich under any of these tax reform proposals. And you have to look at capital gains and estate taxes under these proposals, which are usually eliminated or drastically cut. Most people ignore these taxes because they are not affected by them, but these are the prizes the super rich are really striving for.
Remember, if the rich make out like bandits, that means they are stealing from the rest of us. The size of the pie doesn't change. It's a zero sum game. If the rich score high, then the rest of us lose. And that's what all these plans are intended to do.
And there is no need to comment on privatization - it's simply a means of siphoning off Medicare and Social Security funds into the pockets of the rich.
They fool millions of Americans with propaganda, and that's why the middle class is losing badly to the rich. We carry water for them in our ignorance and stupidity. We are like Pavlov's dogs. Whistle "Socialism," and we lose our minds.
hark: I don't find the flat tax of only marginal interest
I would like to point out that the term "radical" is normally used to describe the Far Left, not the right ("serves a radical right agenda"). Being a proud American radical of 40 years standing, I urge the use of the correct political term--reactionary right agenda.
godlessdem: Thanks for this informative piece, Matt. I would like to
Technically, the word "radical" means pertaining to the root. Same word origin as radish.
If ASA was only interested in the for-profit status quo in medicine, they would not be radical. But their ideas for reform, however much I disagree with them, would change things at the root, so radical is a reasonable word to use.
The interchangability of fascism, communism and liberalism is linguistic laziness at its worst, but having "radical" mean either left-wing or right-wing is a fair use of the word.
MatthewHubbard: Technically, the word "radical" means pertaining to the root. Same
The corporate-owned MSM has its own weird philosophy of what constitutes "balance." They think that it consists of saying an equal amount of good stuff and bad stuff about each political party, no matter if one party is constantly lying and manipulating. The Faux Nooze model has caught on with the other sources, all desperate for viewers. Even though Faux Nooze ratings are inflated by a ratings method that counts people who sit transfixed in front of Faux all day as new and different people for each sampled time period.
Of course, the network and cable nooze providers don't out the astroturf groups. To do so would leave them with a big deficit of bad things to say about Democrats. What has happened to real NEWS? Iit just doesn't exist anymore except on BBC and (sort of ) on PBS. Why does anybody at all wonder why the Republicans are always trying to "get" PBS?
The 3 major networks ought to be forever shamed by the way they behaved during the swiftboating of Kerry. They traded common ordinary decency for access....I will never forget Brokaw, while riding in a Bush train or bus, saying that there was no direct connection between the lyin' swifties and the Bush campaign. A couple of minutes on google would have set him straight,IF he had cared about truth.
dawlishgal: The corporate-owned MSM has its own weird philosophy of what
The problem is that HP, TPM, Daily Kos are singing to the Chior.
Government has allowed the media to own the market, news print, TV and radio. We do not need to worry about Corp. take over of the political process, it is allready accomplished with the news media.
Woopie: The problem is that HP, TPM, Daily Kos are singing
Consider the notion that most news organizations take off-the-wall comments like Sarah Palin's pronouncements that Obama was "pallin' around with terrorists" or that he was promoting "death panels" and run them as gospel, soon you have large blocks of people believing lies to be true.
I too am amazed that the right wing is so successful in turning average Americans against their own interests.
LawrenceNC: Consider the notion that most news organizations take off-the-wall comments
Journalism is no longer about journalists digging to find the facts and report cogent stories.
That would be partisan, since facts have a well-known liberal bias.
Journalism now means finding the two polar opposite sides of any discussion, pitting them against each other and deciding where the "center" (ie correct) position is based on who wins the rhetorical sparring match. It is the journalist's job to referee this match regardless of what the so-called "facts" are.
For example, say you're doing a story on the solar system. Some people say the earth is round and travels around the sun. Others say the earth is flat and the sun travels around it.
Bring on two experts: one astronomer and one "ordinary taxpayer" who took his kid out of Godless public school for teaching that "bullcrap" about the earth being round.
Let them go at it until it a) gets personal or b) you have to go to commercial.
After the segment, bring on an "analyst" who will claim that all "serious" people know that the earth is round, but that the sun travels around it. Because that's the "centrist" position.
That's what leads to "serious" TV journalists asking why 44 year old guests don't choose Medicare for themselves if it's so good. That's what causes them to roll their eyes when it is explained to them that 44 year old people don't qualify for Medicare.
Who cares about the "facts?" It was a good hit!
JShankel: Journalism is no longer about journalists digging to find the
I've often postulated that if candidate A declared the moon to be made of green cheese and candidate B said, "that's ridiculous, it's made of rock!" The headline next day would read "CANDIDATES DISAGREE OVER COMPOSITION OF MOON"
hp_blogger_Matt Osborne: I've often postulated that if candidate A declared the moon
So this is what the tenure of Les Moonves has wrought on the credibility of journalism at CBS News. And coming on the heels of Cronkite and Don Hewitt's and passing, no less. Apparently the setup of Dan Rather concerning the facts over Dubya's National Guard service was just the beginning. In Daniel Schorr's book "Clearing The Air," there's a Bill Mauldin cartoon with a bespectacled university professor teaching a history of broadcasting course, directing his pointer to a poster board with the CBS eye and proclaiming, "the C means 'courage,' which brings us to the B.S." On his desk is a newspaper featuring a headline about Schorr's supension by the network in 1976. Plus ca change, as the French say...
telebob59: So this is what the tenure of Les Moonves has
I am able to donate $$. Your goal is such a modest and doable amount, I believe you will meet it. We each have in our individual hearts an area reserved for such support. You will be successful.
We do what we can to support truth, honesty. Living them is our first step. I never realized they had become such rare birds.
Much luck to you Mr. Osborne. Your example is a good example.
ChampLessFuzzy: I am able to donate $$. Your goal is such
"I am convinced we need to grab the reins on this healthcare issue and get our citizens insured but do it in a conservative and Republican way, not socialized medicine or Hillarycare," Romney told the seniors."
Is Romney coming out of the dark corner he has been hiding in? LOL, Now Romney is trying to say his health care bill is the Republican way? LOL< ROTFL
Nice try MIt, flip flop, Mitt.
MikeRdg: "I am convinced we need to grab the reins on
Several years ago I moved their web link to my right wing media folder. More because they pretend to be ignorant when forwarding right wing talking points and pressures than because they are particularly good at right wing propaganda.
OliverTwist: I rarely read CBS News and never watch it. Several
"The AARP claims to be all about representing the interests of seniors, but when it comes to health care reform, they are selling seniors down the river to line their own pockets. AARP has a vested interest in seniors being driven out of Medicare Advantage into Medigap plans because AARP makes a fortune in royalty fees from Medigap plans."
I offer this because you've mentioned ASA as a GOP mouthpiece and they are sited as a alternative to AARP.
I don't know how to rebut this one.
And who is Tim Wildmon ...and why is he?
P.
Step 2 convince the young people it was the seniors who did it so you can kill social security and medi care as well.
Shouldn't be to hard to switch to a generational hate message considering the overwhelming vote of seniors for McCain over Obama.
Call me pessimistic.
http://www.osborneink.com/2009/09/public-option-bargaining-stage.html
Remember, if the rich make out like bandits, that means they are stealing from the rest of us. The size of the pie doesn't change. It's a zero sum game. If the rich score high, then the rest of us lose. And that's what all these plans are intended to do.
And there is no need to comment on privatization - it's simply a means of siphoning off Medicare and Social Security funds into the pockets of the rich.
They fool millions of Americans with propaganda, and that's why the middle class is losing badly to the rich. We carry water for them in our ignorance and stupidity. We are like Pavlov's dogs. Whistle "Socialism," and we lose our minds.
I would like to point out that the term "radical" is normally used to describe the Far Left, not the right ("serves a radical right agenda"). Being a proud American radical of 40 years standing, I urge the use of the correct political term--reactionary right agenda.
If ASA was only interested in the for-profit status quo in medicine, they would not be radical. But their ideas for reform, however much I disagree with them, would change things at the root, so radical is a reasonable word to use.
The interchangability of fascism, communism and liberalism is linguistic laziness at its worst, but having "radical" mean either left-wing or right-wing is a fair use of the word.
Of course, the network and cable nooze providers don't out the astroturf groups. To do so would leave them with a big deficit of bad things to say about Democrats. What has happened to real NEWS? Iit just doesn't exist anymore except on BBC and (sort of ) on PBS. Why does anybody at all wonder why the Republicans are always trying to "get" PBS?
The 3 major networks ought to be forever shamed by the way they behaved during the swiftboating of Kerry. They traded common ordinary decency for access....I will never forget Brokaw, while riding in a Bush train or bus, saying that there was no direct connection between the lyin' swifties and the Bush campaign. A couple of minutes on google would have set him straight,IF he had cared about truth.
I didn't hear FOX saying anything good about the Democrats.
Whata happened to fact checking?
Government has allowed the media to own the market, news print, TV and radio. We do not need to worry about Corp. take over of the political process, it is allready accomplished with the news media.
At least these sites provide a place where the choir can have a discussion.
I too am amazed that the right wing is so successful in turning average Americans against their own interests.
That would be partisan, since facts have a well-known liberal bias.
Journalism now means finding the two polar opposite sides of any discussion, pitting them against each other and deciding where the "center" (ie correct) position is based on who wins the rhetorical sparring match. It is the journalist's job to referee this match regardless of what the so-called "facts" are.
For example, say you're doing a story on the solar system. Some people say the earth is round and travels around the sun. Others say the earth is flat and the sun travels around it.
Bring on two experts: one astronomer and one "ordinary taxpayer" who took his kid out of Godless public school for teaching that "bullcrap" about the earth being round.
Let them go at it until it a) gets personal or b) you have to go to commercial.
After the segment, bring on an "analyst" who will claim that all "serious" people know that the earth is round, but that the sun travels around it. Because that's the "centrist" position.
That's what leads to "serious" TV journalists asking why 44 year old guests don't choose Medicare for themselves if it's so good. That's what causes them to roll their eyes when it is explained to them that 44 year old people don't qualify for Medicare.
Who cares about the "facts?" It was a good hit!
...then why aren't we finding it out on "60 Minutes"?
We do what we can to support truth, honesty. Living them is our first step. I never realized they had become such rare birds.
Much luck to you Mr. Osborne. Your example is a good example.
Is Romney coming out of the dark corner he has been hiding in? LOL, Now Romney is trying to say his health care bill is the Republican way? LOL< ROTFL
Nice try MIt, flip flop, Mitt.
Several years ago I moved their web link to my right wing media folder. More because they pretend to be ignorant when forwarding right wing talking points and pressures than because they are particularly good at right wing propaganda.