 |
 |
|
|
|
|||
Your Tax Dollars at Work Comment on this item
Submitted by Lynn on Tue, 03/16/2004 - 1:52pm.
The Bush administration paid actors to pose as journalists and interview subjects in a series of "video news releases" sent to TV stations. The packages were in support of the Medicare "reforms" of last year. And I use the word "reform" loosely. Bookmark/Search this post with: delicious | digg | reddit | google | yahoo | technorati | stumble upon | sk*rt( categories: Healthy Living | World Events )
Related items you may be interested in:
 Yup, tax payer supported propaganda...Not only that, but the video news releases din't work. Seniors were not any clearer about the changes afterwards than they were before. They're just confused. So not only did they misuse taxpayer's money, but they wasted it as well. May The Hair On Your Toes Never Fall Out --Traditional Hobbit Blessing  Another good reason not to waAnother good reason not to watch the television news: even more advertising than we thought! Danna looking for organizing and found politics - have to disagreeAs the subject line states, I was searching for organizing articles and found the 'tax dollars at work'. I am interested in politics and wanted to put my 2 cents (all that is left after taxes) worth in. First, campaign ads are not paid for with tax dollars. Second, the actors/Medicare Ad was produced and run by the Department of Health and Human Services, not the Bush campaign. There were some Democrats that thought it was put together by the Bush people, so the GAO reviewed them and found that they (the ads) were not partisan and/or illegal. I remember reading about it recently and after all: 'it must be true, I read it on the internet'. (I saw this comment written on a post somewhere and love it) As Danna said, another reason to not watch.... I pass commercials all the time and haven't seen this one! They WEREN'T campaign adsThey were Video News Releases sent out to TV stations to announce the Bush Admin.'s spin on the new Medicare law. They were aired as if they were actual news reports. It is illegal to use federal money for "publicity or propaganda purposes" unless authorized by Congress. The Department of Health and Human Services used federal money to produce the videos that had actors claiming to be reporters. Even if it wasn't illegal, it WAS unethical. May The Hair On Your Toes Never Fall Out --Traditional Hobbit Blessing ad campaignIt's an ad campaign, put out by the HHS, not a news release and not a political campaign for President Bush. I think the real issue is the situation since the ad ran and the money spent on it. The HHS started, produced and ran the ‘ad’. I know that ‘several democrats’ contacted HHS about what THEY thought, which is the ‘objectivity and any connection with the Bush campaign’. (Of course, in my opinion, especially in the heat of political battle, the Democrats do not want anything positive being said about Medicare) The GAO looked into it and found no illegality. Ethically? The timing certainly is good, huh? I know the following comment will push this to another level, but coming out of the Clinton administration everything is better in the ethical department, we went as low as we possibly could. But, do I trust all politicians? Oh yea. I am to the point that each and every subject is different and I don’t believe the same person on every point. Something I am sure we can agree on, is that we taxpayers do pay for advertising for any governmental agency or for any non-profit organization that receives grants. Some organizations I may support, some I don’t. I can bet your list and my list would be different. I would love to have a say, not by election, but actually checking off each year when we pay taxes, detailing what I would like to spend my money on. The only thing that Washington would find out from that is the reality of what we want.  "As low as we possibly could?"It's time to limbo, Jimbo! Apparently there's an ethics sub-basement. Lynn Siprelle, Editor are we on to ethics?First, I am now assuming we have moved on from the ad to ethics and, considering the source of the 1 document you provided, let me ask you if you want me to revisit the Clinton years for investigations, TAX DOLLARS WASTED (Whitewater, travelgate), the LYING and UNETHICAL behaviour of the 'president', impeachment of the ‘president’ and the fact that his lying (remember the hearings and depositions?) costs us more tax dollars than any INVESTIGATION. Now we don’t even know the definition of sex. Or, do we start with the current race and the ‘lying’ and flip-flopping of Sen. Kerry. My goodness, he doesn’t know where he stands on an issue until someone runs a poll. So, if you want details on ( I can send you some links to read from media (reality check.com, the American spectator.com, human events online, free republic), numbers of investigations of Dem. Vs. Rep, tax dollars spent on investigations, or the lying, which considering that the man/woman we elect SHOULD be held to a higher standard, I can certainly send you some links. That would be easier than typing. Looks like I visited a very one sided discussion so I will stick to organizational issues..... Maybe I should call on the Clinton’s, they certainly are organized.... certain documents from Whitewater are STILL showing up that were requested from the former first lady and president..... that they SWORE didn’t exist. There is no ethics sub-basement, you have ethics or you don’t. How to tell a politician is lyingTheir mouths are open. Political ethics is very nearly an oxymoron. So young, so cynical, no? Deb, here's the deal at TNH: If you say something, be ready to back it up (that goes for me as much as anyone--take me to task!). Please don't take that as people being rude. It's the way things work here. If you say "so and so is the worst president we've ever had," expect to back that up regardless whether so-and-so is Clinton or GWB, because someone is likely to challenge the statement. (Not YOU--your statement. There's a difference.) The discussion is one-sided only if the other side doesn't say anything. Hold our feet to the fire! Bombard us with evidence! Start your own journal! And if you don't like political discussion, don't enter the political discussions here. There's tons to look at here without ever going near the forums or journals, and in fact the vast majority of folks who read the site never participate in the discussions. Above all, please don't take political disagreement personally. Two of my most treasured TNHers are JennyE and Susannah, and politically we are diametrically opposed. Just ask em. Lynn Siprelle, Editor flattered!Yes, I am! Wow, Lynn! Of course, you have earned my respect too, even though we don't agree on many things. At the very least, I think I am better informed on many issues. Most of all that, outside my own little world, that many people don't agree with me. Deb, just so's you know, I'm very pro-Bush, and very republican. I'm just not very informed on this topic and too busy right now to find out more about it, so I haven't been in on this discussion. Things can get really heated here on political debates, as well as many other hot topics. We just had one going a couple weeks ago (very hot topic!), and I need a break from such things and sticking to the home organizational stuff myself. I find I spend too much time here and not enough time with my family when I get involved with debates like that. I hadn't seen you around before, so a big WELCOME! Can't wait to see you around some more! Post new comment |
greetingGood Afternoon! Please get a free account or log in to comment or blog.
Here's what this site is about, and I encourage you to subscribe to one or more of the RSS feeds and subscribe to the newsletter using the form below. Thanks for visiting! --Lynn
|
© 1999-2008 Lynn Siprelle and the respective authors, unless otherwise noted.
Technorati Tags: 
Which is why I like to stay in my own little world. LOL!
