There Are Days... When You Wonder Why We Even Bother...

[WillyT]

Obama Administration Seeks to Strengthen Rupert Murdoch
Matt Stoller - NakedCapitalism
12/27/12

Earlier this year, Obama Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed relaxing media ownership rules to allow Rupert Murdoch to buy the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune. It’s not something you’ll see discussed much, because Republicans like the fact that Murdoch is going to get more power, while Democrats don’t want to admit that Obama is helping the person framed as their arch-nemesis. This is part of a larger pattern – media consolidation is one of the many structural problems that Obama promised to deal with. And indeed, this is the real arena where the battle over free speech is being fought. Corporate control over our communications infrastructure is the free speech question of our time.

<And>

On a more fundamental level, media consolidation and free speech are indistinguishable problems, and liberals have avoided the intellectual conundrum this presents. For while there are periodic flare-ups of the debate free speech rights, very rarely does anyone take the time to analyze the economics of speech. The controversy about Eric Loomis, a professor who spoke out obnoxiously and aggressively against the NRA and then had his academic career threatened as a result, is the latest round in kicking up a free speech debate. But this controversy is far less consequential than questions of how the corporate sector uses free speech rights. The first amendment is not actually an affirmative right to speak. It is written as the government’s inability to make any laws restricting the right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to peaceably assemble, or to petition one’s government. Obviously the government makes rules all the time on the first amendment – that’s what a permit for a march, parade, or protest is. And it makes rules on speech on a regular basis, it just so happens that these are rules about who owns and runs the telecommunications and cable industries.

<And...>

Corporate control over our communications infrastructure is the free speech question of our time. When Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder refuses to investigate Rupert Murdoch’s company for bribery in the phone hacking scandal, and Obama’s FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski works to help Rupert Murdoch’s company buy more media assets, and the number of broadcast media outlets owned by minorities continues to decline, it’s clear we have a free speech problem. But it has nothing to do with a comment on twitter or burning flags.

More: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/12/obama-administration-seeks-to-strengthen-rupert-murdoch.html

***************************************************************************************

And from 11/29/12...

Obama's FCC Set to Give Rupert Murdoch a Media Monopoly
Thursday, 29 November 2012 14:35
By Thom Hartmann and Sam Sacks, The Daily Take

<snip>

Unsatisfied with his media empire in the UK and Australia and his several media holdings in the United States like TheWall Street Journal, the New York Post, and Fox News, Rupert Murdoch wants more. He wants a media monopoly.

Murdoch is currently jockeying to buy the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, which just so happen to be the largest newspapers in the nation’s second and third largest cities. That will add to his current media empire in the United States, which includes the most watched cable news network in the nation, Fox so-called News, and the most circulated newspaper in the nation, The Wall Street Journal.

The only thing standing in Murdoch’s way of full-spectrum media domination in America are Federal Communication Commission rules that forbid one company from owning both a newspaper and a television station in one community. Murdoch already owns local television stations in both Chicago and Los Angeles.

But according to sources within the FCC, Chairman Julius Genachowski is quietly planning to scrap those rules. Under pressure from major media moguls like Murdoch, who see big bucks and huge political power in a consolidated national and local media, Genachowski circulated a new order to other FCC Commissioners that would allow for cross-ownership of TV and newspapers in the nation’s twenty biggest media markets.

A similar effort was made in 2007 by George W. Bush’s FCC, but it was shot down after the Senate voted to repeal it and a federal court blocked it. Not to mention, 99% of the public comments the FCC received opposed that media consolidation effort.

But, undeterred, Murdoch and other media moguls kept lobbying, and now President Obama’s FCC is expected to consider these rule changes again in December. And if Americans don’t get involved in this issue and pressure the FCC to say “no,” then Murdoch and his billionaire buddies will likely get what they want, which is complete domination of our news media.

<snip>

More: http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/13051-obamas-fcc-set-to-give-rupert-murdoch-a-media-monopoly

[villager]

1. Why do we even call them "liberals" anymore?

All the Democrats are is slightly-more-stomachable corporatists. Sometimes.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. There are exceptions.

Grayson, Whitehouse, Baldwin…Sanders at least caucuses with the Dems…

[villager]

4. That's what's so sad, Jackpine -- they occupy the role that liberal-leaning Repubs did in the 70's

A small handful you can point to, as doing the right thing(s) for the rest of us...

[xchrom]

2. Seems to be so.

Several other DUers have posted news articles about this.

[Enrique]

5. I remember, when it became clear that Obama opposed the Fairness Doctrine

we were told: this is good, he is focused on the true problem: media consolidation.

[sabrina 1]

6. Saw that yesterday and was too disgusted to even think about it.

And here we thought we were finally getting rid of that right wing propagandist.

[ProSense]

7. Matt Stoller is an anti-Obama idiot

The FCC is considering an action, proposed in 2011, now postponed because of push back, but Stoller would have you believe that this is something Obama himself is proposing. Not only that, but his idiotic premise is that because Rupert Murdoch might do something as a result of this action, Obama is actively seeking to "strengthen" him. Preposterous.

Moyers: But the chairman of the FCC is President Obama’s own appointee, his own choice to head it. Why would the president be wanting to approve a greater concentration of media?

Aaron: Well, that’s the $64 million question. Barack Obama as a senator was one of the leading voices against the exact same rules that his FCC chairman is pushing forward now. He wrote op-eds, he co-sponsored legislation to throw out these exact same rules, legislation that passed in the Senate. And yet, his own FCC chairman, his appointee, is suddenly in a huge rush to get this deal done, and if these reports are to be believed, they’re going to try and do this by Christmas, before the end of the year.

http://billmoyers.com/2012/12/03/fcc-moves-towards-more-media-consolidation/

The good thing is that Stoller and his ilk, even with the consolidated media pushing the same line, couldn't help to elect Romney.

He spent the entire pre-election season declaring that electing Romney would be better than re-electing Obama.

<...>

In terms of the Supreme Court itself, Obama’s track record is not actually that good. As a senator, Obama publicly chided liberals for demanding that Sen. Patrick Leahy block Sam Alito from the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor has in her career already ruled to limit access to abortion, and Elena Kagan’s stance is not yet clear. Arguing that Romney justices would overturn Roe v. Wade is a concession that Senate Democrats, as they did with Alito and Roberts, would allow an anti-choice justice through the Senate. More likely is that Romney, like Obama, simply does not care about abortion, but does care about the court’s business case rulings (the U.S. Chamber went undefeated last year). Romney has already said he won’t change abortion laws, and that all women should have access to contraception. He may be lying, but more likely is that he does not care and is being subjected to political pressure. But so is Obama, who is openly embracing abortion rights and contraception now that it is a political asset. In other words, what is moving women’s rights is not Obama or Romney, but the fact that a fierce political race has shown that women’s rights are popular. The lesson is not to support Obama, who will shelve women’s rights for another three years, but to continue making a strong case for women’s rights.

The Case for Voting Third Party

So, what is to be done? We have an election, and you probably have a vote. What should you do with it? I think it’s worth voting for a third party candidate, and I’ll explain why below. But first, let’s be honest about what voting for Obama means. This requires diving into something I actually detest, which is electoral analysis and the notion of what would a pragmatist do. I tend to find the slur that one need be pragmatic and not a purist condescending and dishonest; no one ever takes an action without a reason to do so. Life is compromise. Every person gets this from the first time he or she, as a kid, asks his or her dad for something his or her mom won’t give him. If you are taking action in politics, you have to assume that you are doing it because you want some sort of consequence from it. But even within the desiccated and corroded notion of what passes for democracy in 2012, the claims of the partisans to pragmatism are foolish. There are only five or six states that matter in this election; in the other 44 or 45, your vote on the presidential level doesn’t matter. It is as decorative as a vote for an “American Idol contestant.” So, unless you are in one of the few swing states that matters, a vote for Obama is simply an unabashed endorsement of his policies. But if you are in a swing state, then the question is, what should you do?

Now, and this is subtle, I don’t think the case against voting for Obama is airtight. If you are willing to argue that Obama, though he has imposed an authoritarian architecture on the American system, is still a better choice than Romney, fine. I can respect honest disagreement. Here’s why I disagree with that analysis. If the White House were a video game where the player was all that mattered, voting for Obama would probably be the most reasonable thing to do. Romney is more likely to attack Iran, which would be just horrific (though Obama might do so as well, we don’t really know). But video game policymaking is not how politics actually works — the people themselves, what they believe and what they don’t, can constrain political leaders. And under Obama, because there is now no one making the anti-torture argument, Americans have become more tolerant of torture, drones, war and authoritarianism in general. The case against Obama is that the people themselves will be better citizens under a Romney administration, distrusting him and placing constraints on his behavior the way they won’t on Obama. As a candidate, Obama promised a whole slew of civil liberties protections, lying the whole time. Obama has successfully organized the left part of the Democratic Party into a force that had rhetorically opposed war and civil liberties violations, but now cheerleads a weakened America too frightened to put Osama bin Laden on trial. We must fight this thuggish political culture Bush popularized, and Obama solidified in place.

- more -

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/27/the_progressive_case_against_obama/

Cenk Uygur, host of Current TV’s “The Young Turks,” asks Matt Stoller, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, why the Obama administration hasn’t done more to challenge Wall Street and the big banks, and what Stoller thinks Mitt Romney would do if he were elected. Stoller answers that because Mitt Romney changes his positions so often, he might be easier to convince than Obama. “Barack Obama is a neo-liberal ideologue,” Stoller says. “He has a strong, rigid view on what is right, and he doesn’t move, evidence be damned.”

http://current.com/shows/viewpoint/videos/he-doesnt-move-evidence-be-damned-says-matt-stoller-of-obamas-approach-to-the-big-banks/

[WillyT]

9. If You Say So... And Thom Hartmann ???

You read the second article I take it ???

[ProSense]

10. I read it:

Obama's FCC Set to Give Rupert Murdoch a Media Monopoly

<...>

Murdoch is currently jockeying to buy the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, which just so happen to be the largest newspapers in the nation’s second and third largest cities. That will add to his current media empire in the United States, which includes the most watched cable news network in the nation, Fox so-called News, and the most circulated newspaper in the nation, The Wall Street Journal.

The only thing standing in Murdoch’s way of full-spectrum media domination in America are Federal Communication Commission rules that forbid one company from owning both a newspaper and a television station in one community. Murdoch already owns local television stations in both Chicago and Los Angeles.

But according to sources within the FCC, Chairman Julius Genachowski is quietly planning to scrap those rules. Under pressure from major media moguls like Murdoch, who see big bucks and huge political power in a consolidated national and local media, Genachowski circulated a new order to other FCC Commissioners that would allow for cross-ownership of TV and newspapers in the nation’s twenty biggest media markets.

Not only is the article from November 29, a couple of weeks before the action was postponed (Stoller's piece ignores that), but also it indicates that Murdoch is attempting to do something, which is to purchase two papers that are in trouble. The fact is that the action is not about Murdoch.

[RomneyLies]

65. Thom Hartmann hjas gone very CTish of late.

The man promotes nearly as many conspiracy theories as Alex Jones these days.

[WillyT]

74. REALLY ??? - Links Please !!!

[RomneyLies]

79. No links, listen to his show n/t

[WillyT]

80. Part Of Being An American... Is Addressing Our Grievances...

It's in the very first Amendment.

And it says NOTHING... about party loyalty.

[RomneyLies]

81. WTF does that have to do with the fact that Thom Hartmann has gone all CTish?

[WillyT]

83. Well... When You Have An Un-abiding Respect For A Politician... This Is A Possible Outcome...

[RomneyLies]

84. I have no idea what you're talking about, so here's a picture of a bunny with a pancake on its head

[truedelphi]

15. Well I am with you Pro Sense -

I mean what the heck could Obama do about this? If he had won in November, then he could take it upon himself to appoint a different - "For the People" head of the FCC, rather than the pro-corporate Dickwad now heading the agency. But with Rmoney arriving in January, what would be the point?

I live in a rural area, so sometimes we don't get the latest news. Correct me if any of this is wrong,please!

[ProSense]

20. Editorial: The FCC blinks, for now, at media consolidation

Editorial: The FCC blinks, for now, at media consolidation

Stealth plans by the Federal Communications Commission to sneak a vote on weakening media-ownership rules were challenged by angry senators.

RELAXING long-standing restrictions on cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcast outlets is a bad idea. Apparently, it cannot be said often enough.

The chairman of Federal Communications Commission was flirting with a quick, quiet vote to undo a 37-year-old rule that prevents newspapers, radio and TV stations from falling under one owner in the same market.

<...>

Rules to limit media cross-ownership are in place to protect the public’s interest in vigorous journalism, independent voices and diverse ownership.

The smoke still billows off a November letter from Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., to FCC chairman Julius Genachowski. The senator was incensed by FCC chatter about liberating cross-ownership to end outdated prohibitions.

- more -

http://seattletimes.com/html/editorials/2019906797_editfccownershipxml.html

Matt Stoller is still an anti-Obama idiot.

[janx]

59. I took a look at this link earlier, shook my head,

and decided not to waste my time.

But thank you for taking the time to do so.

[sabrina 1]

88. Funny how suddenly Matt Stoller, who used to be such a blind partisan, is now

being attacked by the same people who adored him several years ago. And as more and more people wake up to what has been going on, there are and will be more Matt Stollers.

[WillyT]

91. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

When he's useful, he's used... otherwise... not so much.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

8. The FCC has more things to worry about...

Like exposed nipples and the wrong word being said before a certain time.

[bluethruandthru]

11. I wish more people understood the immense harm that was caused by media consolidation!

The telecommunications act of 1996 started the major slide and it's gotten worse ever since. We need to let our elected officials know that we want big companies to be able to own FEWER media outlets per market...NOT more!

[ProSense]

12. True, but

"The telecommunications act of 1996 started the major slide and it's gotten worse ever since."

...the Internet has changed that, and newspapers in particular are struggling. There should be no effort to save them by way of further consolidation, and that's why this rule is being criticized.

[bluethruandthru]

13. My major concern is radio.

I've been part of the radio industry my entire adult life and watched it go from lots of mom and pop stations where communities were well represented and there was diversity in programming whether it was musically or ideologically... to what it is today. Four companies own the majority of this countries radio stations. That has cost tens of thousands of jobs as these companies have done away with local programming and personnel and now offer up pablum for the masses..including the huge glut of right wing fanatical talk shows that are forced upon every market in the country. Stations no longer broadcast 'in the public interest' ...but in their corporate owner's interest. There is no attempt to serve a community or it's needs. It's now just about how much money can be made with as little investment in quality as possible.

[Bozvotros]

19. You are exactly right.

With the availability of MSNBC and CURRENT improving I feel less shut out of television. But it is still badly unbalanced.. Fox has 3 channels here. CNN with a few exceptions is conservative. CNBC is full of right wing financial bullies. And the major networks are just pablum and mush.

But talk radio where I live is nothing but ranting Nazi's 18 hours or more a day, just filling people up with lies, distortions and hate. You talk to a hate radio junkie and you realize how totally misinformed they are on everything. On a recent trip to the east coast that's all I found on any station. Not one liberal voice to be found. How the fuck is that possible? And why do our so called liberal representatives not do anything about it?

[limpyhobbler]

14. Thanks Democrats. nt

[pnwmom]

29. Patrick Leahy and eight other Democrats have requested the FCC not to proceed

without further study. Are you thanking them for that?

[limpyhobbler]

43. Actually no I was sarcastically thanking the Obama administration.

Thanks for the info. In the future I will try not be sarcastic unless I can do it better.

[pnwmom]

69. Maybe you should thank the FCC because they do have a response to the claims.

The OP was based on an article written in November, and the FCC quickly replied.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2086929

[limpyhobbler]

70. FCC: thank you for showing up at work ?

It's not good enough. They should be busting up the media monopolies.

[jillan]

16. Please tell me that there are still true liberals out there in politicsland somewhere.

[merrily]

49. Of course there are.

Not too many in the Democratic Party anymore, though.

And, when people like Conyers and Rangel pass, there will be fewer and fewer.

[Doctor_J]

72. We're getting run off of DU

what does that tell you?

[DearHeart]

82. Sad that DU is turning into a Moderate Republican or BLUE DOG site!

I thought the DEMOCRATIC Underground was like a "big tent" and everyone was welcome to voice their opinions. After what I've been seeing over the past couple of weeks, I don't think that's true anymore; there is no room for LIBERALS here anymore! You MUST agree with everything that the President says and does. If you don't like his policies or a particular "deal" he's proposing, you MUST STFU and keep you opinions to yourself, you "HATER"!

Not shutting up, nor will I blindly support anyone-DEM or President!

[Doctor_J]

85. Only because the president is a moderate Republican

who calls himself a Dem. If we had a (R) president who supported Gitmo, torture & rendition, domestic spying, cutting SS benefits, destruction of public schools & unions, insurance mandates, etc., then DU would be much more unified. Some folks believe that wrong is wrong, regardless of party. Others believe that a D president must be agreed with on every issue, right or wrong.

[DearHeart]

87. Wrong is wrong, regardless of party! Well said!

Really irks me when people say you have to agree with a Democratic president's policies no matter what they are...even if it's drone killings in other countries, believing that He or the US gov has the right to kill an American citizen anywhere in the world, without a trial! Wish we had known in 2008 that he was a "Moderate Republican", maybe we would have chosen someone else who was more of a DEM. But, then again, probably not. Liberals don't have good choices anymore...all politicians seem to be leaning right these days.

[Blue_In_AK]

17. All I have to say is

thank god for the internet. The mainstream media is completely useless.

[limpyhobbler]

44. +1

Useless.

[woo me with science]

67. They are working on it.

Thanks to Republicans and complicit corporate Democrats, the US is *already* surveilling all of us on the internet in violation of the Constitution.

And a massive spy center is being constructed in Utah for collecting data on all of us.

And Obama signed ACTA and then tried to hide it from the US press by calling it a "national security issue."

And the administration has an internet ID plan in progress which has never been discussed with the public.

And after several "cybersecurity" orders akin to CISPA were rejected in Congress because of concerns about privacy, Obama wrote an executive order which will force through the internet-censoring and -controlling measures at any time.

The definition of possible "terroristic" activity has been ridiculously expanded to justify surveilling those who oppose the destruction of our civil rights, and we already know that Occupy has been labeled potentially terroristic and subjected to coordinated federal surveillance and violence.

We already have very good reason to be outraged and concerned about the future of the internet not just because of the UN's actions in this regard, but based on our own bipartisan government's actions.

[Blue_In_AK]

68. Speaking of Occupy,

I read in our local paper this morning that the FBI had infiltrated even Anchorage's tiny little Occupy movement in 2011. I guess they got a little something to add to their dossier on me, which probably goes back to my SDS days in the '60s as far as I know.

Apparently it doesn't matter that all of this is clearly unconstitutional. While everyone is agonizing over the second amendment, the fourth has gone completely out the window.

[libodem]

18. OMFG

Make it stop.

[1620rock]

21. How long before they set their sights on the internet?

[RKP5637]

42. Yep, exactly, and they already have. The internet will succumb to this too, it's just a matter

of time, and that's how countries are toppled, misdirected and/or reconstituted into something else, and in America, I think I will live to see it turn into a theocratic dystopia. Americans are naive, gullible and too easily led in the wrong direction.

[Last Stand]

75. The internets is their biggest threat right now.

People cross check their facts on the web. Liberal organizations distribute the truth, and that's the most painful part of the repub platform. Without it, Obama doesn't win.

They want the internet and they want it yesterday.

[WillyT]

77. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! - K & R !!!

[AZ Progressive]

22. Obama is nothing more than a cunning politician

Obama makes George W. Bush look like a rookie in the acting department. Bill Clinton (who signed many pro-corporatist bills into law) and Obama are masters at acting and looking appealing and winning over liberals while doing things to undermine liberals and the American people behind the curtains.

[woo me with science]

23. He is a corporate Trojan Horse,

and he is actively working to advance the agenda of the one percent.


Obama, Democrats Push to Make Bush Spying Laws Permanent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022084702

The Enemy Expatriation Act - another attack on legitimate protest and dissent like NDAA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022072450

FBI Investigated 'Occupy' As Possible 'Domestic Terrorism' Threat, Internal Documents Show
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022061578

NDAA 2013 - Indefinite detention without trial is back
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014342985

Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014348022

Democratic-controlled US Senate approves...new $633 billion war bill
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022060449

Purposely aiming bombs at children: "It kind of opens our aperture."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021931748

Obama Administration To Offer More Than 20 Million Acres in Western Gulf of Mexico for Oil/Drilling
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1896005

Obama's (Corporate) Education Reform Push is Bad Education Policy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x221922

Trans Pacific Partnership is NAFTA On Steroids
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1914478

NYT slams the government for choosing not to prosecute HSBC top-bankers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021965407
[/font size][/font color]
Why is Social Security Under Attack from Obama, when it ADDS NOTHING to the deficit???
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022065493

Obama: "Too many of us have been interested in defending programs as written in 1938."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2069607

[AZ Progressive]

26. Sometimes it seems that the only difference between Democrats and Republicans

is that Democrats pretend to be on the side of the American people (and are socially liberal) but many are sheepishly corporatists, while the Republicans are very open about their corporatist nature (and are socially conservative of course.)

In other words, they are two factions of the corporatist party: the kinder, gentler, socially liberal corporatists and the iron hard "Roman" type socially conservative and hawkish corporatists.

[woo me with science]

30. Yes. The two-party system is a scam now, a "good cop"/"bad cop" game,

purposely manipulated to give Americans the illusion of choice.

The Democratic Party's Deceitful Game
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/


It's well past time to give up the illusion of what we are really facing here. We are under assault by corporatists who pretend to represent us, and we had better figure out what we are going to do about it, because change is not coming from those who claim to be on our side.

[WillyT]

34. Thanks For The Article... I think...

Muat have missed that.

[AZ Progressive]

36. I've thought about this since a long time ago

But I didn't want to believe it because I really hate to be so cynical, but I guess we can't let our innocence make us victims.

[woo me with science]

40. No, we can't afford it anymore.

We need to be clear about what has happened in Washington. Corporate money floods the place, and it has corrupted both parties. We have a SYSTEMIC problem.

And it's time to acknowledge it and figure out what the hell we do about it.

[RKP5637]

45. Change? Yep, change is happening all of the time, but not the change many of us envisioned. n/t

[ProSense]

27. Showing your

"he is actively working to advance the agenda of the one percent. "

...anti-Obama hand again?

Five ways your health care will change in 2013

Posted by Sarah Kliff

1. Health-care cost growth will slow to a new low. <...>

2. Your Medicare taxes will increase. Some people mark the turning of the new year with champagne and kisses. The Affordable Care Act has something slightly different in mind: Two new taxes to finance Medicare. Both are meant to bring in additional revenue to continue funding the health-care program for seniors.

Employers already take out 7.65 percent of workers’ wages to support the elderly and disabled. Of that, 1.45 percent goes toward paying Medicare’s hospital bills. Obamacare increases the Medicare hospital tax by 0.9 percent, beginning in 2013, for anyone who earns more than $200,000 ($250,000 for joint filers). It also creates a new, 3.8 percent tax on investment income, setting income thresholds at the same $200,000 and $250,000 levels mentioned above. Taken together, those two provisions are expected to generate $210.2 billion over the next decade.

3. Your insurance plan will be explained in plain English. Say goodbye to insurance forms with 8-point font that stretch on for dozens of pages. Starting in 2013, the Affordable Care Act requires insurance companies to send their subscribers a standardized, four-page summary of benefits and coverage that runs through the health plan in easy-to-understand terms. Think of this as a nutrition label for health insurance. Here’s what one page of the sample summary looks like.

<...>

4. Primary care providers in Medicaid will get a 73 percent raise.<...>

5. The Obamacare exchanges will open for business. We often talk about January 1, 2014 as the date that states need to be ready for the health reform law. But when you talk to the states actually working to roll out the law, they often talk about October 1, 2013 as a much more significant deadline. That’s the day when the health exchanges open for business, when any American can go online, compare plans and, if they want, purchase health insurance. This is true for state-operated health exchanges as well as those being run by the federal government.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/26/five-ways-your-health-care-will-change-in-2013/

Increasing Medicaid Primary Care Fees for Certain Physicians in 2013 and 2014...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022047642

Having failed to repeal Obamacare, Republicans refuse to implement it
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021978966

'one of Obama's few honest appointees' says the administration has made 'historic progress'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2086324

[AZ Progressive]

31. Obamacare is pro-corporatist

It makes sure that the Insurance companies remain the primary gateway to healthcare, rather than single payer or even a public option. Its basis was written by the Heritage Foundation.

Yes, it has many good provisions of it, but it's still pro-corporatist.

[ProSense]

39. It's

"Its basis was written by the Heritage Foundation."

...pro Medicaid and Medicare, which it strengthened.

16 million: number of Americans who become eligible for Medicaid under the health care law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002531684

Should we thank the Heritage Foundation for that and the tax increase on the rich: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2059710

[merrily]

51. I heard today that increasing taxes on incomes over $250K will be enough for one week.

And Obama has already put over $400K on the table.

Is that so?

If so, the tax increase is largely symbolic.


Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[merrily]

54. Sadly, the SCOTUS took away the one leverage that the feds had to persuade states

to expand Medicare, though.

The ACA would have allowed the feds to take away all Medicaid funds unless states opted for the expansion. The SCOTUS struck down that part of the ACA, with Justices Kagan and Breyer joining the Republican Justices in that part of the opinion.

[woo me with science]

41. Absolutely. That poster will defend anything this administration does,

up to and including the destruction of our civil rights. We are propagandized, because corporate America has deep pockets and a strong interest in preventing dissent.

We can't afford to entertain this garbage anymore. We are losing our country.

[ProSense]

46. You on the other hand

"That poster will defend anything this administration does"

...can't defend your own nonsense.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2059737
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2059767
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2060088

[L0oniX]

50. Shhhhh! Don't tell people about the ACA deductable ...that they can't afford to pay.

[liberal_at_heart]

89. You're not kidding. I'm paying $775/month in premiums

[JaneyVee]

37. I opted out of this jury service.

[L0oniX]

48. Survey says...

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Seat sniffing.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: There is nothing wrong with this post. If we cant discuss the current state of the 2-party system , here , then WTF.

Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Is someone giving me jury duty over a bull shit alert on purpose?

[woo me with science]

53. DU knows exactly what is going on,

all the Third Way propaganda notwithstanding.

Thank you for posting this.

[merrily]

63. True, but in the hands of other jurors, the post may have been hidden.

Congrats on putting all that together. I don't know that I am that ambitious.

[Oilwellian]

61. Woot Woot n/t

[babylonsister]

76. Every stroke you take, you hate him, doncha. Got any better ideas?

Who would satisfy you? Because I'll just bet there is NO ONE in this world who could.

Just think about a Romney presidency. That would give you lots to kvetch about.

And no, I haven't explored those links or where they came from, but I can imagine.

The difference between you and me is I like to look at the positive, unlike your own self.

Happy New Year! Kvetch on!

[pnwmom]

24. This report is a month old. In fairness, you could have had included the FCC response.

Also, at least 9 Democratic Senators have also had a response.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-12-05/news/chi-tms-variety-fcc-rule-changes_1_cross-ownership-fcc-s-media-bureau-media-ownership

An FCC official, however, said that while the proposed order would relax or eliminate rules on newspaper and TV cross-ownership, buyers in the top-20 markets would have to obtain a waiver, subject to a series of tests to determine if the combination still serves the public interest. For example, in those markets, there still would be restrictions on owning one of the top-four TV stations in a market as well as a newspaper. Also in place would be a so-called eight remaining voices test, a measurement of whether there are enough other major media entities in a market to represent a diversity of views.

Bill Lake, chief of the FCC's Media Bureau, said in a statement that "reports that the order would make it easier to own a top TV station and a major newspaper in a market are wrong. In fact, the order would strengthen the current rule by creating an express presumption against a waiver of the cross-ownership ban to allow such a combination. In addition, the proposed order preserves the existing TV duopoly rule, which forbids ownership of more than one of the top-four TV stations in any one market."

The changes also would eliminate prohibitions on newspaper-radio and TV-radio cross-ownership.

Last week, nine Democratic senators, including Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, sent a letter to FCC chairman Julius Genachowski asking him not to proceed on the proposed rule changes until there could be further study on the impact on media ownership by women and minorities. They also cited concerns over localism.

SNIP

[SidDithers]

62. Including that wouldn't allow for the appropriate amount of anti-Obama outrage to be generated...nt

Sid

[sabrina 1]

92. Exactly the kind of response you would expect from the FCC under its

current leadership. This is another perfect example of Shock Doctrine. See how they use the excuse of wanting to 'help out the newspaper industry'. Lol, they really do believe we are all stupid.

We no longer buy newspapers but NOT because of the 'digital age', because they are cowards, because they are no longer 'news' papers. Because they disgraced themselves by refusing to publish facts during the devasting eight years of the Bush administration and contributed to the lies being told, except for a very, very few. And that few was marginalized and received no backing from their fellow 'journalists'.

All they have to do to get back their customers is to start acting like journalists rather than, as Colbert so rightly called them, 'stenographers'.

This whole statement is bs. The FCC should be doing the exact opposite of this. But then, considering who is now in charge of it, what else could we expect? And under a Dem Administration too. Unbelievable.

[No Compromise]

25. well that ought to make the media completely obsolete, i mean who really listens to them now?

No credibility=no ad revenue

Repainting the deck chairs on the titanic isn't going to stop the sinking...

[FiveGoodMen]

28. I've said before that Obama was not on our side

I think I was putting it too mildly.

He's not any kind of Democrat (regardless of how he's registered).

[ProSense]

33. In your opinion, but President Obama

rejected DOMA (the late Senator in your avatar voted for that bill) and endorsed marriage equality. So there is that.

[FiveGoodMen]

35. If you remember, Obama was for DOMA before he was against it.

His DOJ defended it.

Eventually the tide turned and he went along with it.

Not that big a feather in his cap and certainly not a reason to overlook his kowtowing to the right wing.

[merrily]

56. President Obama was never in a postition to reject DOMA. Only Clinton was, and he signed it. DOMA

is still the law of the land. Obama said only that the D of J would not defend DOMA further in circuits that have already held it unconstitutional.

Obama could have asked Congress to repeal it, as he did with DADT. AFAIK, he has not done that.


Yet. But, I have hope.

[woo me with science]

38. He is a corporate Trojan Horse.

and he is actively working to advance the agenda of the one percent.


Obama, Democrats Push to Make Bush Spying Laws Permanent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022084702

The Enemy Expatriation Act - another attack on legitimate protest and dissent like NDAA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022072450

FBI Investigated 'Occupy' As Possible 'Domestic Terrorism' Threat, Internal Documents Show
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022061578

NDAA 2013 - Indefinite detention without trial is back
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014342985

Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014348022

Democratic-controlled US Senate approves...new $633 billion war bill
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022060449

Purposely aiming bombs at children: "It kind of opens our aperture."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021931748

Obama Administration To Offer More Than 20 Million Acres in Western Gulf of Mexico for Oil/Drilling
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1896005

Obama's (Corporate) Education Reform Push is Bad Education Policy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x221922

Trans Pacific Partnership is NAFTA On Steroids
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1914478

NYT slams the government for choosing not to prosecute HSBC top-bankers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021965407
[/font size][/font color]
Why is Social Security Under Attack from Obama, when it ADDS NOTHING to the deficit???
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022065493

Obama: "Too many of us have been interested in defending programs as written in 1938."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2069607


The two-party system has become a scam, a "good cop/"bad cop" game purposely manipulated to give Americans the illusion of choice.

The Democratic Party's Deceitful Game
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

It's well past time to give up the illusion of what we are really facing here. We are under assault by corporatists who pretend to represent us, and we had better figure out what we are going to do about it, because change is not coming from those who claim to be on our side.

[countryjake]

60. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service...

At Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:09 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

He is a corporate Trojan Horse.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2087021

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Spamming board with anti-Obama and anti-Democratic Party posts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2086916

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:31 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: election season is OVER if you do not like what this poster says debate it, unless of course you chose to have it hidden because you can not or wish to censor
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Poster may be wrong - but ok to post!
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I don't really see the alerted poster's two replies (which you have highlighted for us) as spamming, since both of those posts are on topic to the thread that they're in. Both are full of links to back up the original claim and are relevant to the OP. I also don't agree that it's "anti-Democratic Party" for us to discuss ways to identify and prevent the disturbing swing to the right that's been occurring, since progressive policy will definitely be needed if we expect to keep the White House in 2016.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Oilwellian]

66. And this little piggy went...

wee wee wee all the way home.

[patrice]

32. NOT an excuse. An explanation: When so many people from across the full political spectrum are soooo

busy, cutting the ground out from under their own and, hence, your issues, you/the-doer have to prioritize your efforts.

That's. the. way. it. works. . . . whether I or anyone else likes it or not.

And that's the way it is going to continue to work, until all of us become exactly alike and cease, therefore, working against one another.

We are a balkanized country and we will always be fucked by our inabilities to collaborate and co - operate with one another and some of what is doing this shit to us, e.g. Rupert Murdoch, knows all of that full well.

Just like Jay Gould said, TTE, you can always hire half of the working class to do in the other half.

And THAT's how we find ourselves in this position today.

[DeSwiss]

47. You can't fix corrupt. - K&R n/t

[plethoro]

52. Color me not remotely surprised...We

ain't seen nothing less. Chris Hedges knows Obama well.

[libodem]

55. Why in the world

Are we busting unions and not monopolies?

[janx]

57. Sources, people--sources. n/t

[lunasun]

58. updare this old IWW poster with some media/FCC icons @ the We Fool You level hmmm?

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&


they are such a big part now

[merrily]

64. Julius Genachowski was a lousy appointment, IMO. Read his wiki.

[Doctor_J]

71. We should have heeded his words

when he admitted to being a Republican. I sort of wish he'd told me before the election.

[WillyT]

73. Me Too... How Many 'Headless Nails" Do We Have In This Administration ???

And.. why are they tolerated ???

ESPESCIALLY... after a re-election ?

[malz]

78. What choice do we have?

[Octafish]

86. No doubt it's a chess move.

Checkmate for Corporate McPravda.

[KoKo]

90. Which dimensional chess is it now? Look...I wanna be hopeful...but SHEESH..the news keeps getting

worse and worse.......Well..in the end, perhaps he will pull it out ...the "Rabbit out of the Hat!." I've given up on the chess...but, who knows? I'm going with the "It's the FAULT of CONGRESS..and NOT ANYTHING TO DO with ME.. I'm "Only the President" and have "little power." Which of course does have some RING of truth given the circumstances of the RW and the MONEY into both our parties who have the same interests which aren't always the interests of the "average" American who has been through a Hell of a BAD TIME for years now.

Whatever.....