'

Cable News Ratings for Friday, December 28, 2012

Categories: '

Written By

December 31st, 2012

 

 

Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for Friday, December 28, 2012

P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
Total Day
FNC        1,044        202         405
CNN           351        100         155
MSNBC           532        159         218
CNBC           178         63           92
FBN             44         13           24
HLN           185         79         106
Primetime P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC        1,532        333         532
CNN           416        115         190
MSNBC           956        253         377
CNBC           213        110         108
FBN             55         16           24
HLN           303        103         145
Net Morning programs (6-9 AM) P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC FOX & Friends        1,028        214         478
CNN Early Start/Starting Point           217         99         128
MSNBC Morning Joe           487        170         266
CNBC Squawk Box           114         30           66
HLN Morning Express w/ Meade           185        106         136
Net 5PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC FIVE, THE        2,050        332         738
CNN Situation Room           685        162         287
MSNBC Hardball WITH C. MATTHEWS           968        241         322
CNBC MONEY IN MOTION           209         65           92
HLN OPTIONS ACTION           175         55           62
Net 6PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC SPECIAL RPT W/BRET BAIER        2,055        335         669
CNN Situation Room           414        114         173
MSNBC POLITICS NATION           908        250         336
CNBC Mad Money           130         34           68
HLN EVENING EXPRESS           119         67           75
Net 7PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC The Fox Report W/S.SMITH        1,596        313         547
CNN ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT           375         90         134
MSNBC Hardball WITH C. MATTHEWS           856        228         327
CNBC Kudlow Report           110         33           55
HLN JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL           232         75         102
Net 8PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC THE OREILLY FACTOR        2,156        454         733
CNN Anderson Cooper 360           449        145         233
MSNBC Ed Show           979        273         377
CNBC HOW I MADE MY MILLIONS           157         61           64
HLN Nancy Grace MYSTERIES           273         81         142
Net 9PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC Hannity        1,442        342         543
CNN Piers Morgan Tonight           446         95         173
MSNBC Rachel Maddow Show           946        242         361
CNBC CRIME INC: WAR CNTRFT GDS           199        105         108
HLN WEEKEND MYSTERIES           336        103         147
Net 10PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC ON THE RECORD W/GRETA 984 203 320
CNN Anderson Cooper 360 354 104 165
MSNBC Last Word W/ L. ODONNELL 944 244 391
CNBC AMERICAN GREED 282 163 152
HLN WEEKEND MYSTERIES 301 126 146
Net 11PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC THE OREILLY FACTOR           681        188         269
CNN ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT           290         91         126
MSNBC Ed Show           414        115         179
CNBC Mad Money             85         40           57
HLN Nancy Grace MYSTERIES           312        156         173

-
For other days cable news ratings click here.

P2+ = viewers over the age of 2

(25-54) = Adults 25-54 viewing

(35-64) = Adults 35-64 viewing

Prime Time = 8-11pm

LIVE+SD: The number that watched a program either while it was broadcast OR watched via DVR on the same day [through 3AM the next day] the program was broadcast. For more information see Numbers 101.

Scratch = when a show's audience fails to meet minimum Nielsen reporting levels. For more information go here.

Nielsen Cable Network Coverage Estimates (as of July, 2012)

CNN/HLN: 99.727 million HHs

CNBC: 97.497 million HHs

FNC: 97.981 million HHs

MSNBC: 95.526 million HHs

Fox Business: 68.407 million HHs

Nielsen TV Ratings Data: ©2012 The Nielsen Company. All Rights Reserved.

 
  • d.d.

    Pouring in TN …some of our Christmas stuff is finally is put away , but, the tree in the great room has to wait for “the football games are on, ” & we won’t take the lights off outside in the rain.

    ———-

    “We will open the book. Its pages are blank.
    We are going to put words on them ourselves.
    The book is called Opportunity and its first chapter is New Year’s Day.”

    Edith Lovejoy Pierce

    We all know New Year’s resolutions don’t work all that well . Follow this instead., &. do the BEST you can.

    - – -

    Question for Jeff

    Chinese Citizens Bought 1 Out Of Every 10 Homes Sold In California In 2011.

    Did they in 2012 ?

    ———–

    Some Chevy Dealers Opting Out of Selling Volts

    According to Automotive News, the sales of the Volt at some dealerships does not justify the cost of special tools needed to repair and service the vehicles.

    Some dealers are unable to sell enough of the range-extended electric cars to make up the cost of the parts. Requiring to sell just five Volts to break-even on the costs of the tools, some dealers are instead opting out of the Volt authorized dealer program…

    —————–

    Matthew likes innovation & I know he reads Mail Online . I wonder what he thinks of : The plant skyscrapers: Giant greenhouses

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2255494/The-plant-skyscrapers-Giant-greenhouses-city-centres-herald-new-age-farming.html

    Our son in Florida grows all their veggies by hydroponics outside.

    There were some negatives in the comment section. Project 21 reared its ugly head. We have a small town very close to where we live which is full of progressives. A well known progressive author moved there years ago , & the town is now rife with Agenda 21 sponsors. The people living there have some real dingbat ideas like it’s up to the government to solve all problems via social engineering & land grabs .

  • cathy

    Happy NEW YEAR!!!

    Dave and Nancy, It really isn’t the far out to ask for a doctor’s note. If you miss a court appointed date stating illness many judges will ask for a doctor’s note. Reporters and others stated they thought she was faking. It wouldn’t be the first time that a person faked illness to get out of something. Now, since Hillary was placed in the hospital, I have not heard anyone in the media or members of the house or senate imply she is faking illness. In fact, a number of those whom implied she was a faker have come forward and said they were wrong and wished her a fast recovery.
    Wishing anyone misfortune, ill will or one tragedy after another is only something a low life would do. Shame on you and I hope God forgives you and that no bad karma comes to you for your misguided statements of hatred.
    Faith3 & Matthew,
    I believe you have fallen for the democratic propaganda. CEO salary increases have not caused the decrease of workers’ wages. As I said before stock options have also been part of CEO salaries but it wasn’t until 2003 that they had to report them as part of their salary. So, comparing numbers before 2003 is comparing apples to oranges. Add to this it was congress enacting tax code 162 in 1993 that caused CEO’s salaries to sky rocket. Code 162 limited the CEO salary deduction to $1m unless it was relation to company performance. This caused many companies to increase the stock options given to CEOs. Which did cause CEOs to think more short term them long. (See what happens when the government puts their noses into business. They make things worse not better.)
    Our politicians salaries have increased greatly since 1970, however the biggest problem is not these salary increase but the increase in every politicians staff size. Congress support staff has grown 400% since 1970. Obama’s White House staff is 12 times the size of Nixon’s. Our government is the largest employer now. That’s are problem the government adds nothing to our economy. Every government jobs has to be paid for by private business. CEO, executives and highly skilled workers can demand high salaries because there are few people that can perform those jobs. So the only place the increase in government size can be supported is through the decrease in salaries to the common worker.
    When I read your statements talking about “worker’s rights”, I can tell you favor socialism. Having a job is not a right. No one owes anyone a job. The only guarantee in life is that one day you will die. I firmly believe that socialism will never work. 1) In a socialist economy the government runs everything. They set the price, pay and job we get. You give all control to government leaders. Do you really trust them that much? 2) In a socialism there is nothing gained by doing the hardest job. There is no drive to work hard or improve your work output. History has many example of the failure of the socialist system.
    I’m for true capitalism which we haven’t seen in the U.S. for decades. Where jobs are something you earn. The value of a job is based on what skills are needed to perform them, how dangerous there are to do and how easy it is to find people willing to do them. If a person wants to assure they are paid a “living wage” they need to acquire skills that businesses need. The more skills they have the better off they will be. People also need to be willing to move to different locations. Most Americans live within 40 miles of where they were born.
    ” If you want to say it is due to workers being less skilled only tells me this is not how CEOs are supposed to be compensated. Supposedly, we’ve been lead to believe that they are compensated largely due to making their work force better trained, more innovative and more skilled/valuable but I can agree that is NOT necessarily happening. Those statistics I gave tell a different story. Instead, some are getting compensated by laying off workers, offshoring, lowing wages and other tactics that really aren’t good for the American work force or the future of the workers in this country.”
    Is this a theory you read? Who lead you to believe CEO’s are compensated for making a work force better trained, more innovative or more skilled? A CEO’s job is to do one thing, INCREASE A COMPANIES PROFIT. IT’S ALL ABOUT THE BOTTOM LINE. A CEO is accountable to the stock holders not the workers. He/She does not owe a worker a job.
    Costco is a good example of a business that pays well. But did you know that Costco only hires people with two to three years of retail experience, that Costco employs 20% fewer workers than a Sams Club of the same size. Costco demands more from their employees and their employees respond and product more than other retail employees, so they need fewer employees enabling them to pay more.
    The answer to our problems is smaller government not a larger one. There are only three ways to increase wealth 1) Mine goods (coal, metals, oil, natural gas,ect…. 2) Grow goods. (Farm crops and live stock). 3) produce goods. The Government does non of these things. In fact the Government stands in the way of it. If you want our economy to start moving you need to increase the reward for taking risks.
    Workers protect themselves by acquiring skills that businesses need. American workers can’t just come out of high school and expect a well paying job. You have to go to a trade school at less. People who go to college need to get a degree in a field that businesses need. Engineering and Computer Information sciences are the two fields that are needed the most but there have the fewest amount of college students. Social sciences, history, education, psychology, performing arts and business administration are the fields of study for most students. These are also the fields in less demand. Not surprising because these degrees are the easiest to get. Since 1988, a B.S. in Business doesn’t guaranty a good paying job there are just too many business majors. A masters is really needed in that field.

  • Raz

    I have no ill will toward Hilary, I wish her nothing but a speedy recovery. That being said, I’ve got 25 years in insurance…..10 in auto claims and 5 in workers comp….and know people will say anything, steal everything and become magicly better the minute you mention cash.

  • Matthew

    I wonder what he thinks of : The plant skyscrapers: Giant greenhouses

    NATURALLY, I’m in favor of them, as well as genetically modified foods, and lab-grown meat.

  • Matthew

    I believe you have fallen for the democratic propaganda. CEO salary increases have not caused the decrease of workers’ wages. As I said before stock options have also been part of CEO salaries but it wasn’t until 2003 that they had to report them as part of their salary. So, comparing numbers before 2003 is comparing apples to oranges.

    This trend has been going on for nearly 40 years, not just since 2003. From 1950 – the late 1960s, AKA the era most baby boomers and seniors consider our ‘economic golden age,’ real wages grew at roughly the same rate, at all levels. In other words, the economy grew, and EVERYONE benefited.

    This trend continues until around 1979; for example, from the early 80s to the mid-90s, real wages declined for the bottom 60% of wage earners, while simultaneously growing for the top 10% of earners. This happened, despite real GDP growth, which completely undercuts the idea of trickle down – the economy thrived, upper income earners thrived, but the working class DECLINED. This has everything to do with the decline of labor and collective bargaining.

    Add to this it was congress enacting tax code 162 in 1993 that caused CEO’s salaries to sky rocket. Code 162 limited the CEO salary deduction to $1m unless it was relation to company performance. This caused many companies to increase the stock options given to CEOs. Which did cause CEOs to think more short term them long.

    Interestingly, this also roughly precedes the single period in the last 30 years where real wages grew decently for the working class. As a matter of fact, from 1995 – 2000, the bottom 20% of earners saw their real wages grow by 11%, while the top 5% of earners saw their wages grow by 10.6% during the same period. The trend reversed once again in the 2000s.

    So the only place the increase in government size can be supported is through the decrease in salaries to the common worker.

    Huh? This only makes sense in regards to personal income taxes for those workers, a large corporation doesn’t get ANY TAX BENEFIT WHATSOEVER from cutting salaries, which are expenses. Hiring, expansion, and better pay for workers are all things that reduce your corporate tax liabilities; the only reason you cut worker salaries is if you want to put that money elsewhere, be it in technology, expansion of facilities, better benefits, or bonuses for skilled laborers, but it does nothing to ensure that less money is going to the government.

    When I read your statements talking about “worker’s rights”, I can tell you favor socialism. Having a job is not a right. No one owes anyone a job.

    No, you can’t; you can tell that I favor a worker, regardless of their skill level, enjoying a safe work place with decent pay, as opposed to the lack of rights that characterizes Chinese manufacturing jobs. I never said having a job is a right. Never. I said that once you’re a full-time worker, you should have an EXPECTATION of some degree of financial security; in other words, if you’re working full-time, then a family emergency such as a major illness shouldn’t be the sort of thing that can push your family into financial ruin.

    A CEO’s job is to do one thing, INCREASE A COMPANIES PROFIT. IT’S ALL ABOUT THE BOTTOM LINE. A CEO is accountable to the stock holders not the workers. He/She does not owe a worker a job.

    Yes, absolutely, which is why it’s imperative that laborers be able to organize, rather than hope and pray for trickle down. An efficient CEO is going to pay their workers the bare minimum necessary to maintain productivity, they’re not (in general) going to increase wages out of the goodness of their heart, so it’s up to workers to protect their own interests.

    They set the price, pay and job we get. You give all control to government leaders. Do you really trust them that much?

    Well, it’s a good thing that nobody here advocated for full socialism, nor for the government to set jobs, merely that the government set a minimum wage, a thing that they already do.

    BTW, I always find this “do you really trust the government…” argument when it comes to things like the economy, and health care, truly hilarious. You yourself have argued here previously for growth in the defense budget. Our government controls a NUCLEAR ARSENAL, the Patriot Act allows the federal government to selectively ignore the Constitutional right of due process, and our surveillance technology has grown by leaps and bounds. You trust the government to run a high tech police state, maintain an arsenal capable of global destruction, yet that same government is too incompetent to raise the minimum wage? COME ON!

    Finally…

    In fact the Government stands in the way of it. If you want our economy to start moving you need to increase the reward for taking risks.

    I would neither advocate for full socialism, nor full free market capitalism, since both are highly idealistic economic philosophies; both, for the sake of their success, are contingent upon everyone within the economy doing the moral thing. For example, we can ‘follow the rules’ in free market capitalism, and it doesn’t matter at all, because we’re in a global economy where most other countries aren’t following the rules.

    China intervenes heavily, through currency manipulation, government spending, and strong-arming workers into working as virtual slaves. Thus, an autocratic state like China has an unfair advantage in the global market vs countries where the government doesn’t intervene at all.

    Second, when you’re in an economic downturn, it is sometimes incumbent upon the government to be the economic risk-taker. Government investment allowed us to build up the largest manufacturing infrastructure on Earth in the 1940s, which the private sector was then able to capitalize on for the next several decades. Government risk taking allowed us to do something that the private sector wouldn’t have pursued – putting a man on the moon – and the private economy was again able to capitalize on that government investment. Ditto for the Manhattan project.

    The best approach, as always, is pragmatism, a little of column A, a little of column B.

  • Hillbilly

    Pat your self on the back Senators. I bet their so proud of what they did. :roll:

    And the overall package will deepen the deficit by an estimated $3.9 trillion dollars by extending the overwhelming majority of the Bush tax cuts. Many Democrats had opposed those measures in 2001 and 2003. Obama agreed to extend them in 2010.

    Source.

  • Hillbilly

    Ratboy’s girl friend Honey Boo Boo number one in trending TV shows & Reality TV Stars.

    That’s what folks in America are searching for on Google. :???:

  • Hillbilly

    The Google Zeitgeist 2012 is hyper linked on the page. You can find what were the most popular searches on Google in 2012, world wide & by country.

  • Bsotgnw

    usaa: and like minded libs/socialists

    If you think a 41:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts is good for the nation. I would like to know your credentials in ecconomics. The democrat party now owns the ecconomie. No more blame Bush. They now preside over an pending desaster that will make 2007-2008 pale in comparison. Its not a question of if but rather when. I just hope republicans are not in charge when it happens. As leffties like Krugman will try and shift the blame (if only we had taxed more and had a bigger stimulas all would have been ok). Oh and I do have a degree in ecconomice….make that two

  • Faith3

    Happy New Year!

    Did I say it was a cause because you better re-read my post. It is not a cause but a consequence because as you stated in the last part of your reply, “A CEO is accountable to the stock holders not the workers.” With that comes the good, bad and the ugly. If stakeholders were equally valued like consumers, workers and community, everyone would benefit in some way. Instead, only putting one thing in mind, has lead to CEOs being rewarded for cutting wages, benefits, downsizing and outsourcing. It hasn’t created much in innovation but has given us more poorly made junk for consumers to perhaps consume at a cheaper price. Which leads us to the work and compensate for performance argument. The reason why many are not getting paid by this method is because they are not showing performance so they can simply do such things as buy back stocks and get compensated in ‘other’ ways for not showing performance. Why show performance and have pay be tied to that when all you have to do is play the system? As I posted on several occasions either we can continue to justify this system, modify it or go toward a paradigm shift. The system is not working.

    The government doesn’t add anything to the economy? Really? That is an all or nothing argument which is simply untrue. I’m not all sure on why people regurgitate this talking point because there are many valuable services offered to the public like education, public safety, health and infrastructure. How can you say this does not help the economy?
    Having these services provided to the public does not equal a planned government model, btw. That is a far leap.

    Also, to blame government for us not being an industrialized producer is only telling half of the story. Those who control the government with the most powerful clout is the financial sector who made sure policies changed to increase their bottom line through all kinds of things that became destructive to people here and around the globe and has caused mass poverty and inequality in its wake. It has help to bankrupt nations and enrich a very few with massive wealth. When industry started to dry up, there was another quick way to make money which didn’t have to produce.

    “If you want our economy to start moving you need to increase the reward for taking risks.”

    If taking risks means with our treasure then that is not risk at all. Those that took a risk with our money got bailed out and everyone else has to now give more money and less benefit as in with a better society. Risk taking is a myth being perpetuated by a few and the same few that say this is a “free market” economy when you, yourself, admit it is not. It is pretty obvious who controls the strings of our government and we allow it as we continue to make up red herrings to take the focus off of what needs to be fixed. So, we cut away from our educational systems, and other social safety nets and domestic programs. We cut away on investing where it counts while we blame the very systems we need as risks have been shifted almost entirely on individuals in the past 40 years.

  • Hillbilly

    Matthew – The Abridged Version: In a nation with an annual GDP in excess of $16 trillion, we should be perfectly capable of paying a full time worker, even in the very lowliest of positions, a wage that allows them to make their family secure; not just a wage and benefits to meet their basic needs, but a wage and benefits that gives you a hedge against disaster, should the worst happen. Few working class families today feel such security.

    ———————————

    Who determines what wage is a decent/secure living?

    These upcoming numbers are for visual reasons only.

    I could live on $8 an hour in Hillbilly Holler, but not the upper East side in NY City. Should pay be based on family size? That $8 an hour could support me & my wife nicely. Then if you have a family of four, that same $8 an hour wouldn’t cut it.

    Let’s say we both work at Burger King. We have the same job. (making french fries) I’m married with 3 kids, you are single. Should i be paid more?

    Now us evolved apes on this spinning rock (Gabriel speak ;) ) don’t all behave the same or have the same morals. A decent wage ($8 per hour) might be OK for say a preacher’s life style, but not a construction worker’s life style. IMO the “decent wage” is to subjective for anybody to decide. Is having a widget a basic need? Some would say yes, others would say no.

    Lastly let’s say Faith3 get’s to decide what the wage is. Does this wage cause the cost of a service or product to go up? If yes, then who pays for the increase? The provider/producer? Pass it on to the customer? Split the difference? I can understand a minimum wage, but don’t see how you have a “decent living” wage & benefits standard.

    **From Thursday’s page.

    C’ya

  • lbsles

    CBO Scores Senate’s Fiscal Cliff Bill: $620 Billion in New Taxes, Only $15 Billion in Cuts

    This is the grand bargain stupid Senate Republicans negotiated for.

    http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/American%20Taxpayer%20Relief%20Act.pdf

    How’s that stimulus money working out for us now?

  • lbsles

    OBAMA’S NEW ECONOMIC NORMAL: SEVEN DEVASTATING FACTS

    1. All-time record annual average gas price: In 2012, the average cost of a gallon of gas eclipsed the previous record by nine cents, bringing the annual average to $3.60.

    2. All-time record food stamp participation: As of last month, for the first time in American history, 47,710,324 individuals — roughly one out of every seven people living in the United States — now receive food stamps.

    3. All-time high youth unemployment: In the last four years, average youth unemployment eclipsed the previous record rising to 17.5% – the highest ever in recorded U.S. history.

    4. All-time high number of Americans no longer in the labor force: Never before in U.S. history have so many been sidelined from the workforce. Today, a record 88,921,000 Americans are no longer a part of the U.S. labor force.

    5. All-time record number of Americans collecting disability: Medical advancements and technological innovations have increased life expectancy and made workplaces safer. Still, the number of Americans collecting Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) has skyrocketed in the last four years. Today, a record 8,827,795 individuals collect a disability check averaging $1,130.34 a month.

    6. All-time record number of Americans living in poverty: According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a record 46.2 million people in America are living in poverty, the highest number in the 53 years that the Census Bureau has collected the figure.

    7. All-time record U.S. debt: The last four years have exploded the U.S. debt to levels never seen before in American history. Presently, the United States is$16,400,000,000,000 in debt.

  • Matthew

    @HB:

    I think we can apply a degree of common sense here. I don’t count widgets as a basic need, my bottom limit for what a worker should expect (as I’ve repeated a couple times now) is security. In other words, assuming a person is not irresponsible with their money, a working person should reasonably expect that something outside of their control isn’t going to wreck their family’s financial stability, which IMHO is the real plight of the 21st Century working class family.

    We’re in a down market, so it’s inevitable that some people might have to go backwards in lifestyle, but I don’t think it’s right that anyone in a nation this wealthy, who is working and do the right things with their money, should have to live in constant fear of personal ruin.

    I have to keep hammering health care costs, because they’re really the big one here: even decent health insurance won’t necessarily be enough to protect a family from financial ruin, and health care costs are the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States.

    You can’t make a one-size fits all proposal, and I wouldn’t even try, so my proposal would be this: We should have an economic system where a family of four, with at least two working members, can expect to meet their energy, caloric, and shelter needs, and have a good degree of security against financial ruin. This is not an untenable goal.

  • lbsles

    1st ruling

    Employer wins relief from U.S. contraceptives mandate

    Sat Dec 29, 2012 5:33pm EST

    Couple says contraceptives provision violates their faith

    * Court found “substantial burden” on religious exercise

    By Jonathan Stempel

    Dec 29 (Reuters) – A divided federal appeals court has temporarily barred the U.S. government from requiring an Illinois company to obtain insurance coverage for contraceptives, as required under the 2010 healthcare overhaul, after the owners objected on religious grounds.

    More than 40 lawsuits are challenging a requirement in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that requires most for-profit companies to offer workers insurance coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices and other birth control methods.

    Friday’s 2-1 order by a panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago in favor of Cyril and Jane Korte was the first by a federal appeals court to temporarily halt enforcement against people who said it violated their faith, said Edward White, a lawyer for the Roman Catholic couple.

    http://www dot reuters dot com/article/2012/12/29/usa-healthcare-contraceptives-idUSL1E8NT1G220121229

  • lbsles

    2nd ruling

    Employer wins relief from U.S. contraceptives mandate
    By Jonathan Stempel

    Sat Dec 29, 2012 9:45pm EST

    A divided federal appeals court has temporarily barred the U.S. government from requiring an Illinois company to obtain insurance coverage for contraceptives, as mandated under the 2010 healthcare overhaul, after the owners objected on religious grounds.

    More than 40 lawsuits are challenging a requirement in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that requires most for-profit companies to offer workers insurance coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices and other birth control methods.

    Friday’s 2-1 order by a panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago in favor of Cyril and Jane Korte was the * * second * * by a federal appeals court to temporarily halt enforcement against people who said it violated their faith, said Edward White, a lawyer for the Roman Catholic couple

    The 7th Circuit suggested that the couple’s legal challenge might eventually prevail.

    Its order came two days after U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor declined to block the provision’s enforcement against companies controlled by the family of Oklahoma City billionaire David Green.

    The U.S. Department of Justice, which had defended the contraceptives provision, did not immediately respond on Saturday to a request for comment.

    http://www dot reuters dot com/article/2012/12/30/us-usa-healthcare-contraceptives-idUSBRE8BS0CO20121230

  • lbsles
  • lbsles

    Deficit ‘fiscal cliff’ bill actually spends $330 billion more.

    We are screwed America. Obama and the Democrats are spending us into insolvency and the wimpy, spineless Republicans are allowing it to happen so they won’t get labeled by 53% of low-information Obamasites. These Republicans should just take a permanent vacation because they’re doing nothing they were elected to do: stop Obama’s spending!!

    The “fiscal cliff” deal that was designed to save money actually includes $330.3 billion in new spending over the next decade, according to the official estimate the Congressional Budget Office released Tuesday afternoon.

    CBO said the bill contains about $25.1 billion in new cuts, but those are swamped by the new spending on extended unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless and other new refundable tax credits that President Obama fought for.

    Of those cuts, only $2 billion are scheduled to take effect in 2013.

    And CBO also warned that some of the cuts Congress is counting are from programs on which CBO never expected the money to be spent anyway — such as cuts to the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan, which was part of Mr. Obama’s health care law.

    All told, the bill deepens the deficit by nearly $4 trillion over the next decade, when the new tax cuts and spending are combined.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/jan/1/deficit-fiscal-cliff-bill-actually-spends-330-bill/#ixzz2Gl4bAq53

  • usa8888

    Well it looks like the right wing radical Eric Cantor has thrown a monkey wrendh into the deal–he wants cuts in Social Security, etc. Of course, adhering to such absurd notions is what cost the t-bags most of their seats and helped lose the presidency for the right. The right, being largely uneducated in economics and uncaring about the common people, want to gut the US budget in a bad recession–exactly what should NOT be done..at least until the economy is humming again before any sever cuts are made. The right cares nothing about the US econoy and “their kids” because the right’s absurd positions would ensure a bleak future for “their kids.” Ironically, the right is too uneducated to understand this. We will wait and see if the right wing kooks can be brought to their senses…..

  • usa8888

    Meanwhile , the birther, Donald Trump, who inherited ten million dollars from his father and his father’s real estate contacts, is against the deal. What would you expect from him. He was the one who said he would beat up China over its currency rate but has done absolutely nothing, except import goods from China for his clothing line………..

© 2014 Tribune Digital Ventures