HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » TomCADem » Journal
Page: 1

TomCADem

Profile Information

Member since: Thu May 7, 2009, 11:59 PM
Number of posts: 16,071

Journal Archives

"What killed the liberal radio star?" - Answer: Corporate Sponsor Boycott

This is a pretty good piece, but it does ignore the elephant in the room that corporate sponsors have often boycotted progressive media. A few years ago, a confidential ABC was disclosed that showed several sponsors specifically boycotting progressive shows. Conversely, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh get a significant amount of money from corporate sponsors and the 1 percent who are eager to support the spread of these viewpoints.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/killed-liberal-radio-star-article-1.1557670

Next week, when WWRL 1600 AM flips its format from progressive talk to Spanish-language music and talk, New York will have no left-leaning commercial talk station for the first time in decades — an ironic development just as an unabashedly liberal mayor and City Council are set to take office.

It’s not as if liberal voices will vanish — noncommercial stations like WBAI and WNYC are still alive and kicking — but they can’t replace the local flavor and crackling energy of commercial radio, where shows move more quickly to accommodate the ads.

The changeover at WWRL comes as a personal blow: I was the morning drivetime host at the station from June 2008 through October 2010. Sad to say, the steady elimination of progressive radio from the airwaves is part of a nationwide crisis facing commercial radio.

In Los Angeles, the last remaining all-liberal talk station, KTLK, will do an about-face and start airing only conservative talkers on Jan. 1. Ditto for KNEW in San Francisco. Last November, progressive stations in Portland, Ore., and Seattle switched to all-sports formats.

The Search Is On for the GOP's Super-PAC Sugar Daddy

Gone are the days where you a million dollar contribution from George Soros was considered huge. Nowadays, if you score the support of a Koch Brother or Sheldon Adelson, you can have one donor singlehandedly make your campaign viable. They do not even have to contribute to you. They can just throw a hundred million in attack ads against Democrats generally.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/the-search-is-on-for-the-gop-s-super-pac-sugar-daddy-20140212

The race for a 2016 super-PAC sugar daddy is on.

"If I were running, I would think: Who is likely to want to fund a super PAC?" said Roy Bailey, a Dallas Republican who served as national finance chairman of Rudy Giuliani's 2008 presidential run. "A lot of people are financially capable. But who likes to play the sport? And who would be able to do it? I'd be all over 'em."

The rise of super PACs has amplified and accelerated the quadrennial donor chase. Candidates now know a single billionaire can make or break their fortunes—as they saw in 2012, when mega-donors Sheldon Adelson and Foster Friess propped up the candidacies of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.

"You may want to just wear logos if you're running for president: 'sponsored by so-and-so.' I mean it's going to get to be like NASCAR where everybody should put logos on your suit," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who, of course, has a super PAC dedicated to reelecting him this year.


Obamacare ‘Bailout’ Actually Saves $8 Billion: CBO

Source: Yahoo Finance

Republicans filed out of a closed-door strategy session today without a final decision on how to approach the coming debate over raising the debt ceiling, according to The Washington Post. But a report issued by the Congressional Budget Office Tuesday morning may help make the decision for them.

Many congressional Republicans believe that they should not raise the nation’s borrowing limit unless President Obama agrees to give them something in return. Approval of the Keystone XL pipeline or a repeal of the so-called risk corridors in the Affordable Care Act are the two items topping their potential wish list. The CBO report might shift the balance between those options because it projects that the risk corridor program, which Republicans have insistently characterized as a bailout of the insurance industry, will probably generate a net profit for the federal government.

The risk corridors are a temporary measure to protect insurers from unexpectedly large losses in the first few years of the health care law’s implementation. Companies that incur costs from medical claims that are significantly higher than expected would be compensated by the government, and those with costs that are significantly below expectations would have to pay back part of that windfall, also to the government.

A joint analysis by the CBO and Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation found that in the coming years, the government will pay out an estimated $8 billion to insurers as part of the risk corridor program. That will be offset, however, by an estimated $16 billion paid back to the government by health insurers. The CBO had previously projected that the risk corridors would have no net impact on the budget.

Read more: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamacare-bailout-actually-saves-8-194100056.html



In addition to Republican lies about the ACA costing 2 million jobs, the so-called "bailout" talking point is also full of lies. The very same CBO report that Republicans cite note that the repeal of the risk corridor provisions that Republicans call a bailout would increase the deficit by $8 billion. Sadly, since Republicans would rather the ACA fail than help people, they probably see this as a good result. Increase misery for political effect sort of like a Christie created traffic jam.
Go to Page: 1