Foxs News

[Stan]

There is some interesting comments here, but some of their journalism is worse that the Fox News they are criticizing.

http://www.alternet.org/media/149193/study_confirms_that_fox_news_makes_you_stupid/

HOWEVER my question is this...

would most fox views on here agree, or be similar to the General Fox news folks?

Quote:

Here is a list of what Fox News viewers believe that just aint so:

91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs

72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit

72 percent believe the economy is getting worse

60 percent believe climate change is not occurring

49 percent believe income taxes have gone up

63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts

56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout

38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP

63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)

[Dr. Shane]

FOXNews attracts extreme conservative and Libertarian types. I think it would be hard to show a cause-and-effect that FOXNews is causing them to believe what they do. I also serious question this study. FOXNews has more viewers than any other cable news channel and I don't believe that many people are so uninformed.

91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs

~Comment: I think most will say the stimulus didn't work because its purpose was to prevent unemployment from going above 8%. By that measure, it has obviously been a failure. Did it create and save some jobs? Of course it did but obviously not enough.

72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit

~Comment: I agree with this. I can't see how it wouldn't increase the deficit.

72 percent believe the economy is getting worse

~Comment: If we use the unemployment rate as a measure, the economy is bad and staying bad but not getting worse.

60 percent believe climate change is not occurring

~Comment: The right-wing position is that the climate is always changing and what is happening now is not man-made. I don't know anyone that says climate change is not happening.

49 percent believe income taxes have gone up

~Comment: I have not heard any conservative commentators say this so I have no idea why anyone would believe it.

63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts

~Comment: Most commentators do not acknowledge the tax cuts in the stimulus legislation. Most of them were targeted toward certain types of behavior like buying energy saving appliances.

56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout

~Comment: I don't believe it was in the news before Obama took office so this one is easy to understand why people would think that way.

38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP

~Comment: I thought more Republicans opposed TARP than Democrats. Correct me if I am wrong.

63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)

~Comment: Bill O'Reilly screams from the housetops that this is a goofy thing to believe and use valuable air time to discuss. I am not sure who at FOXNews is making that claim.

[bonnie]

this...

Aug. 10, 2009

What Will Health Care Reform Cost You?

MoneyWatch.com: How the Health Bill Payment Options Could Affect Federal Deficit, And What Comes Out of Taxpayers' Pockets

Play CBS Video

Video

Still Debating Health Reform

In town hall meetings across the country, the debate over health care reform is loud and nasty, even when audiences and speakers agree. As Kelly Colbiella reports, many are still skeptical.

Stories

Health Care Reform: How It Will Affect You

In Mexico, Obama Predicts Health Care Win

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Health care reform, if it passes, will cost about $1 trillion over the next 10 years. Negotiators in the Senate and House are now saying they've winnowed the cost down to "only" $900 billion or so. Where will that money come from? Look in the mirror.

Although President Obama and congressional leaders have been adamant that health care reform will be financed through savings on existing programs or new revenue, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the House proposal would actually increase the deficit by $239 billion over 10 years. While it's too soon to say what the final plan or its financing will look like - several versions of the bill in both the House and the Senate would have to be reconciled before final votes are held - here are the key financing options that are on the table.

Squeeze savings out of Medicare and Medicaid

Support: Fairly broad-based

Opposition: Some insurers and health care providers that stand to lose money

Likelihood of inclusion in final bill: High

Value over 10 years: $465 billion

Potential cost to you: If you're a Medicare Advantage patient, the quality of care might suffer.

This proposal would provide about half the money necessary for the health care overhaul, in part by reducing payments to hospitals that treat Medicare patients. Payments to private Medicare Advantage plans would be trimmed by $156 billion over 10 years to bring them in line with payment rates for patients in traditional Medicare. Supporters of a private-market approach to Medicare, who have seen the writing on the wall for some time on this issue, caution that some seniors may suffer if private plans, which may offer enhanced services and better-coordinated care than traditional Medicare, pull back in their markets.

Tax the wealthy

Support: House Democrats

Opposition: Republicans, some newly elected House Democrats from wealthier districts, Senate Finance Committee members who believe any new tax revenue should come directly from the health care sector

Likelihood of inclusion in final bill: Uncertain

Value over 10 years: $544 billion

Potential cost to you: If you're an individual making over $280,000 or a family with income over $350,000, you could eventually be looking at a tax surcharge of from 1.0 to 5.4 percent on your income above that amount.

The current House bill would impose an income tax surcharge starting at 1.0 percent on the top 1.2 percent of earners in the country, or individuals with adjusted gross incomes over $280,000 and families that earn more than $350,000 (some legislators are calling for a higher threshold, however). The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the surcharge would have no impact on 96 percent of small businesses, but "imposing taxes on anybody in a recession is not going to promote economic growth," says Joseph Antos, a health policy expert at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute. Negotiators on the Senate Finance Committee reportedly prefer to raise revenues to pay for health reform from within the health care system itself, by taxing the value of health insurance benefits, for example, or penalizing employers who don't offer health insurance.

Tax employee health insurance benefits

Support: Senate members have discussed implementing a capped version of this tax; President Obama has not ruled it out.

Opposition: Labor unions

Likelihood of inclusion in final bill: Moderate

Value over 10 years: Full taxation would yield $2.5 trillion; capping the exclusion at the level of the standard federal employee plan would generate $418.5 billion.

Potential cost to you: You'd have to pay taxes on the value of your employee health plan or, more likely, on the amount of its value that exceeds an average employee's - now about $13,000.

A typical health insurance plan for a family costs about $13,000 a year, but you pay no income tax on the contributions that your employer makes toward those benefits. That freebie costs the federal government approximately $245 billion in forgone income tax revenues every year. Economists and health policy experts favor eliminating the tax exclusion, as it's called, on the grounds that it encourages overly generous coverage that, in turn, encourages employees to use more health care than they need. Rather than eliminating the tax break entirely, another option would be to cap it at a certain level - for example, the amount of the standard federal employee's health plan, which is now worth about $13,100. Unions, which often have richer-than-average benefits, are strongly opposed to any tax change. Recently, a third option emerged: Tax the insurers or employers that offer "overly" generous plans. Although more politically palatable, experts warn that those charges would get passed along to consumers, likely in the form of higher premiums.

Limit the itemized deductions of the wealthy

Support: President Obama

Opposition: Nonprofits, homeowners groups, real estate professionals

Likelihood of inclusion in final bill: Slim

Value over 10 years: $267 billion

Potential cost to you: If you're in the top income tax brackets, your ability to fully itemize deductions would be reduced.

This proposal would require taxpayers in the top 33 percent and 35 percent income tax brackets to deduct certain items, like their contributions to charitable organizations and mortgage interest, at the lower 28 percent rate. President Obama recently spoke in favor of this revenue raiser, but it was loudly booed by nonprofits that depend on charitable contributions, as well as homeowners and real estate professionals who benefit from the mortgage tax break. Like the surcharge on the wealthy, this proposal has also gotten less traction among Senate Finance Committee members, because it isn't directly linked to the health sector.

Impose or raise "sin" taxes

Support: Senate Finance Committee members

Opposition: Soft drink and alcoholic beverage manufacturers, grocery and restaurant trade groups

Likelihood of inclusion in final bill: Uncertain

Value over 10 years: $113 billion

Potential cost to you: A tax of 3 cents per 12-ounce can of sugar-sweetened beverage and an excise tax of about 14 cents per bottle of beer or glass of wine

Although not strictly related to health care financing, there's a certain logic to raising money for health reform through taxes on sugary soft drinks and alcohol. On the other hand, sin taxes tend to fall disproportionately on poor people, who have less ability to pay taxes in the first place. Interest in this option got a boost following a recent report that obesity-related costs account for over 9 percent of all annual medical spending, or $147 billion. People changing their habits as a result of new taxes could lower these expenses, but those savings are hard to quantify and may be offset by Social Security and Medicare costs attributed to people living longer, as the CBO has noted.

Penalize employers who don't offer health insurance

Support: Broad-based

Opposition: Some small-business groups

Likelihood of inclusion in final bill: High

Value over 10 years: Up to $163 billion

Potential cost to you: If you're a small-business owner, you might have to pay a stiff penalty if you don't insure your workers.

Both bills have "pay or play" provisions that penalize employers who don't offer health insurance to their workers. But penalties in the House version are more stringent - up to 8 percent of payroll - compared with the Senate version, which would impose a flat $750 penalty per full-time worker. Some small businesses would be exempt from this provision, including employers with 25 or fewer employees under the Senate bill and employers with annual payrolls of less than either $250,000 or $500,000 under the House bill. (The House committees approved different thresholds and will have to work out the differences.)

Lower the insurance subsidy threshold

Support: Fiscal conservatives

Opposition: Consumer advocacy groups

Likelihood of inclusion in final bill: Uncertain

Value over 10 years: Unspecified for now

Potential cost to you: If you make between $32,490 and $43,320 a year, you might lose out on subsidies to help you pay for your health insurance.

Current House and Senate bills allow individuals and families with incomes up to four times the federal poverty level ($43,320 for a single person or $88,200 for a family of four) to qualify for help buying coverage through the national insurance exchange. But as negotiators look for ways to trim health reform's trillion-dollar price tag, the more than $700 billion that's earmarked for subsidies could come under scrutiny. "Reducing the outlay from 400 [percent] to 300 percent of poverty is probably something they'll have to do," says Paul Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change, a nonpartisan research and policy organization. It's a tough call between raising health insurance costs for someone who earns just a bit more than someone else and saving tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars in total program costs. Then again, most of these choices are.

More from MoneyWatch.com:

[bonnie]

Quote:

72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit

72 percent believe the economy is getting worse

Are you saying it is not worse for the 72%? If you take the time to look at real numbers it certainly is not getting better.

Most people understand that the climate does go thru cycles,just don't believe the hype that the world is burning up or is it freezing up now. It seems we got rid of the global cooling

Quote:

63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts

Quote:

38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP

Have a hard time believeing republicans were quite that irrespnsible

Quote:

63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)

Don't take that away from Obama,he enjoys the attention or he would have put it to rest in the very beginning

[Stan]

hmm kinda proves the point..

[bonnie]

hmm kinda proves the point..

I think te record numbers of food stamp recipients would have a hard time grasping your point as to improving economy.As those standing in line hoping and praying their is enough funds left for them to receive help to heat their homes.Maybe those lining up for the third year of unemployment benefits)welfare) might not get it either.

Let's not forget those lucky souls that found out just what Obamacare meant so far.

But Obama did promise Shovel ready jobs with the billions he spent,didn't he?OOPs,wait a minute,he finally told the truth and said there isn't any such thing as shovel ready jobs.Jokes on you.

Do a little research and find out just how few permanent jobs were actually created and then check to where the rest of the money went.

Those searching for jobs,getting food stamps in record numbers and trying to figure out how to heat their homes will surely be relieved to hear how much better things are

[Gary K]

hmm kinda proves the point..

Well, Stan, show your evidence that the people who believe the things you've listed are incorrect in their beliefs. Show it, not from the site you took the list from, but from real economic news.

That said, that some of the people who claim to be Fox viewers can believe certain of the things listed tells me that they only claim to watch Fox, or the numbers were pulled out of thin air. Some of the things you listed are never presented on Fox the way they are alleged to have influenced their viewers to believe. The only way you can know the truth about Fox is to actually watch it, as the distortion field generated by the political left is so severe that you cannot believe what you hear or read in the mainstream media.

Two cases in point. The claim that a majority of Fox News viewers are "birthers" has to be bogus. Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Van Susteran, and Cavuto all dismiss birthers as idiots who are not living in reality. They condemn them harshly and have even presented the evidence to show the falsity of the "birthers" claims on their own shows, and have each done so more than once. On top of that the straight news shows don't make "birther" claims either.

If the claim about Fox viewers believing income taxes having gone up is actually true, it is something I would bet that the question was phrased so that it tied all taxes together in many people's minds. If that is the case, then yes, taxes have gone up. Even if that isn't true, Fox hasn't been telling anyone that their income taxes have gone up in the last few years. None of their political commentators have made that claim, and I certainly haven't seen that reported on Fox.

Yes, Fox has been against raising taxes, but that's a different issue.

[bonnie]

Two cases in point. The claim that a majority of Fox News viewers are "birthers" has to be bogus. Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Van Susteran, and Cavuto all dismiss birthers as idiots who are not living in reality. They condemn them harshly and have even presented the evidence to show the falsity of the "birthers" claims on their own shows, and have each done so more than once. On top of that the straight news shows don't make "birther" claims either.

Don't let those pesky facts get in the way.If memory serves me right it was a liberal loony that began the birther thing

[bonnie]

When will Liberals admit one of their own started the 'Birther' movement?

When will Liberal's own up to one of their own starting this whole Birther Movement?

Republican's wouldn't of pursued it if it hadn't been pushed to the forefront of politics by a Democrat. The person that instigated the debacle is non other than Philip Berg, the Philadelphia attorney who filed suit against Illinois senator Barack Obama in Federal Court in Philadelphia, questioning the constitutional eligibility of his candidacy for president.

Berg, who served as Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania for eight years, ran twice for governor in 1990 and 1998 and once for the U.S. Senate in 1994, was former chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery (PA) County and a former member of the Democratic State Committee.

http://www.americasright.com/2008/08/q-w…

There are the facts, Liberals can no longer accuse the Republicans of mess they have got us into.