I voted for Obama and like him. I'm concerned with this, too. Not from a Constitutionality standpoint...but from the standpoint that I believe the media needs to be independent and a watchdog...and needs to keep away from allowing for the perception that it's anything but that. This may give the appearance to Americans that a private media source has been hijacked by the administration...that could create a backlash, even if that appearance is nothing more than an appearance. At the very least, they need to allow for there to be a group of those who are not in favor of the president's healthcare plans to be in attendance so that their concerns can be aired and addressed. I'm afraid it's going to look over-the-top....and may actually be over-the-top.
I thought about this and I actually would really like to see the daily workings of the House Republicans and their opposition strategy to this. I think it would make for a lot more interesting television than covering Obama.
If you do your history, you'll actually discover that people who worship Free Markets as perfect allowed the Great Depression to become the Great Depression by allowing the financial system to fall into ruins. You'll see a repeat of the consequences by studying what happened with respect to Lehman Brothers and it's fallout under our last president. I'm not for the government directing investment in this country. I think free markets make more money for more people over time than directed investment. But there are very necessary regulations, particularly amongst financials, that require significant government involvement. And when they blink, it requires significant government involvement to get them back on their feet....you can't treat the bankruptcy of a major financial institution the same way you treat the bankruptcy of just any other business.
Not really.... Under FDR he threatened to expand the number of seats in the supreme court to 15, in essence packing the courts with his hand picked justices who backed his "New Deal". Why you might ask? Well because previous attempts to implement his government social enterprises were deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the supreme court justices. After years of political bullying by the administration the court began to waiver a bit which was further accelerated by the death or retirement of eight of the nine justices while FDR was still in office. Thus began the modern democratic party who shifted its views to rely heavily on the government and its social programs to maintain its base of power. Ronald Reagan reiterates this even further with his "I didn't leave the democratic party, it left me" statements in the 1950s and 1960s.
ROFLMAO - tell that to Fox news.... The press is supposed to do what? Oh, yeah....generate $$$$$.... DD
I hate it when the media makes every story about one side versus the other (CNN is consistently guilty of this). These issues are not about left versus right or yes versus no, they are about the many details and intricacies and arguments specific to each situation. A good report will highlight those details and augment them with opposing viewpoints. A bad report will simply juxtapose two opposing arguments side by side. This ABC special might turned out to be biased or one-sided, but there's nothing wrong with what they are planning in principle. There is only one President, and doing a report on what the President is planning is not inherently biased or propaganda.
Agreed, they are all in it to "win it"...... You have to watch some and read between the lines, some are more unbiased than others..... Fox is probably the worst.....and CNN probably the most balanced. DD
I think they each are bad on certain issues and good on others. I really dig the Megan Kelly chick on Foxnews when she discusses legal issues.
Yes, really. The "original progressives" were naturally part of The Progressive era, which occurred from roughly 1890-1915... they were not borne from the Great Depression.
Free markets are all about personal choice and personal accountability. You cannot have one without the other. If you look at it objectively its been the governments tinkering and meddling that has caused the whole problem to begin with.....starting with the inception of the FED in 1913. The stock market crashes are always based on greed dictating peoples decisions instead of common sense. This is human nature and does not get fixed by government. Just look at Fannie Mae and the millions the directors siphoned off before the most recent debacle. This was compouned by more greedy people hedging bets on highly volatile lending practices. At some point the house of cards had to come crashing down. But as in every other time of collapse, it will be the free market to bring it back; not the government!
1. Agreed. There are cycles....but you can't stand on the verge of collapse every 10 years. The government's job is to provide some stability. This is particularly true within the banking industry. Leaving financials merely up to the market kicks our ass over and over and over again. 2. The greed is inherent in the very supply/demand curves that free market worshippers point to! That's the whole point. It rewards the greed over and over and over again. What the curves don't do a good job of is including the impact of the financial industry (and bad decisions therein) on the economy at large. And these painful periods are exacerbated as they're usually preceded by a decrease in government oversight of that industry. S&L failures/junk bonds and our current plight bear that out.
An appearance on Good Morning America? And a townhall? And a newscast from the Whitehouse? I don't like the President on GMA, or SNL, Letterman, Oprah, or whatever. I tend to think the presidency should have more dignity then that -- but that's a different thread I suppose. And the townhall will all depend on the audience and the questions. It's a townhall -- not a debate. Could very well be balanced and informative. The newscast -- maybe. But a bit of a stretch. It's a one-time thing. I don't see the big deal. The WH does not get to be newsdirector. The GOP is doing what is should be doing in planting seeds of media bias. And hoping to influence the questions in the townhall. All parties do that. Maybe ABC is biased? But one newscast from the WH does nothing to either refute nor confirm that bias unless you already held that perception.
That doesn't prove that national health care is unconstitutional. I agree there are a lot of things where the Fed has stretched the Constitution but in principle a national health care isn't unconstitutional. It depends on how it is constructed and run.
I don't think the issue of the coverage being biased is what bothers me. ABCNews leans a bit to the left, CNN is more moderate, and of course FOX is out in looneyville rightwing land. What bothers me is that Obama is picking one network over another to do this. It's the bias a president is showing to the media, not the other way around. All channels and media outlets should be invited to participate, including FOX (shudder). As for national healthcare being unconstituational. Give me a break. I don't think it's possible to have national healthcare without first reforming the system, and the cost is simply too much. If Obama really wants this to happen, he has to bring down the cost. And to do that, he has to work with hospitals and doctors to find ways to do that...and they are going to say, stop the malpractice suits and put limits on it. Not surprisingly, lawyers are the reason healthcare costs are so high. Or part of the reason.
