PDA

View Full Version : Why it would be a bad idea for Republicans to kill the Corp for Public Broadcasting.



Paul Pless
10-10-2012, 09:54 AM
Its a suggestion that we get often from Republicans. I honestly doubt it will ever happen, but if it did it would be a political mistake to do so. Less than twenty percent of all funding for NPR and PBS comes from the CPB. That funding comes with the caveat that, "strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature". The CPB is governed by a board appointed by the president and they serve six year terms. Most surveys of listeners and watchers of news type programs assert there is no political bias to their programming. I won't personally go so far as to say that. I listen to a lot of NPR and I find their 'news programs' to be fairly well balanced but their 'news type' programs, i..e political talk to tend towards the left in a restrained manner.

However, I don't think anyway would deny that if funding were cut by Congress, that institutions like NPR and PBS would continue with private and commercial of some type. What would be gone though is the explicit requirement for balance and objectivity. I have no doubt that a privately funded CPB would become a dedicated mouthpiece to and for the political left.

Kaa
10-10-2012, 10:15 AM
I have no doubt that a privately funded CPB would become a dedicated mouthpiece to and for the political left.

And why would that be bad? NPR has a pronounced leftist bias and I'd rather have them accept it and fly the proper flag instead of pretending to be "objective" whatever that might mean.

I am also not at all sure that "a dedicated mouthpiece" for the left would be a success. Radio America (or whatever the left's attempt at talk radio was called) failed pretty hard.

Kaa

Concordia 33
10-10-2012, 10:27 AM
Romney's comment that President Obama is more fixated on saving Big Bird's job than that of the rest of the country is spot on. That said Big Bird's job is quite secure. Sesame Street is a financially viable children's entertainment program without the need of direct subsidies. They have great marketing of their sesame street products, and could survive quite well in the free market. I do not think it is a bad thing to subsidize the rest of public television if we were flush with cash - we are not. Like every person that lives within a budget, we cut out non-essentials during lean financial times. I think that we are clearly in a time of great financial stress and need to cut ALL non-essentials such as public television. Which is not to say that it is an unworthy investment, just not an essential one.

Kaa
10-10-2012, 10:39 AM
I listen to it every single day, morning and evening.... and I think your claim of 'pronounced leftist bias' is total BS.

Well, you also think of yourself as a liberaltarian... :-P

Kaa

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-10-2012, 10:46 AM
Romney's comment that President Obama is more fixated on saving Big Bird's job than that of the rest of the country is spot on. That said Big Bird's job is quite secure. Sesame Street is a financially viable children's entertainment program without the need of direct subsidies. They have great marketing of their sesame street products, and could survive quite well in the free market. I do not think it is a bad thing to subsidize the rest of public television if we were flush with cash - we are not. Like every person that lives within a budget, we cut out non-essentials during lean financial times. I think that we are clearly in a time of great financial stress and need to cut ALL non-essentials such as public television. Which is not to say that it is an unworthy investment, just not an essential one.

Romney's comments about the possible demise of Big Bird is a boon to the Left. Even if he didn't say that it was one of those places he shouldn't have gone. Those things happen and he must pay.
Romney is a powerful preacher when he gets the spirit but like all who have that glibness it's easy to have your mouth get ahead of your brains.

I would like to see President Obama appear at the next debate with a Big Bird stick pin in his lapel.

Canoez
10-10-2012, 10:48 AM
As a parent, I laud PBS/NPR for the fact that it seems to be one of the last "on air" markets providing educational, cultural and historical programming, I don't see why we, as a country, would want to cut off one of the cheapest mainstream educational sources that we seem to have.

Canoeyawl
10-10-2012, 10:49 AM
NPR has a pronounced leftist bias
Kaa

That's because they tell the truth. Some people can't handle the truth...

RodB
10-10-2012, 10:53 AM
Total BS... why the hell should we subsidize a conglomeration that hardly needs it and is biased... We give them over 400 million each year and they are a viable brand that can make it on their own. This is certainly one of those situations that cannot pass the test of "is it worth it to borrow money to keep giving them funds"...

RodB.

Canoeyawl
10-10-2012, 10:56 AM
The amount of subsidy money given to PBS will keep the pentagon going for six hours.

Ian McColgin
10-10-2012, 10:58 AM
Public broadcasting is biased mildly right of dead center. Only in the land to the contrarian negative right would PBS/CPB be seen as "left". You want left, listen to Pacifica.

Kaa
10-10-2012, 11:05 AM
It's funny how only the left-wing people think PBS/NPR is non-biased or "mildly right". All y'all think it might indicate something? :-D

Kaa

TomF
10-10-2012, 11:07 AM
Nations with traditions of public broadcasting are well aware that the mandate of the public broadcaster is different from that of the private broadcaster. There are some "public goods" which cannot be provided within the context of a "brand" needing to develop and retain "market share." That's somewhat less apparent, of course, if your nation happens to be the culturally dominant one. For the rest of us though, they're important venues for nation-building.

But I think you'd find that to a somewhat lesser degree than Universal Health Care, but to a greater degree than you really think, nations which have viable Public Broadcasting entities view them as a "third rail." The abolition e.g. of the BBC, the CBC, and I expect (though I don't know this) the Australian version of ABC would be a serious political mistake in the countries where they exist. And a serious loss to the world's broadcasts. They've certainly been cut various times, under various governments - frequently to massive public outcry. But outright abolition would paint a target on whoever did it.

leikec
10-10-2012, 11:07 AM
It's funny how only the left-wing people think PBS/NPR is non-biased or "mildly right". All y'all think it might indicate something? :-D

Kaa


Not really--mainly because your definition of "left" is anyone to the left of you...and that definition would probably fit 2/3rds of the electorate...

Jeff C

TomF
10-10-2012, 11:10 AM
It's funny how only the left-wing people think PBS/NPR is non-biased or "mildly right". All y'all think it might indicate something? :-D

KaaWhat it indicates to me is how far the American spectrum has shifted to the Right. Back in the 80s when I watched it, there was nothing Leftist about the MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour - in fact, it seemed a whole lot like the positions taken by Canada's then Progressive Conservative party.

I doubt anything has changed in the successor program's editorial policy. There's quite a bit that's changed in the Republican party - and in Canada's Conservative Party too.

BETTY-B
10-10-2012, 11:11 AM
Since it caters to more than just old white men, it must certainly be tilted to the left.

Kaa
10-10-2012, 11:13 AM
There are some "public goods" which cannot be provided within the context of a "brand" needing to develop and retain "market share."

Could you expand on this argument? I'm not sure how it goes.

Kaa

TomF
10-10-2012, 11:16 AM
Could you expand on this argument? I'm not sure how it goes.

KaaWhy don't you use your imagination a little, and I'll make some editorial corrections. ;)

Kaa
10-10-2012, 11:18 AM
Not really--mainly because your definition of "left" is anyone to the left of you...and that definition would probably fit 2/3rds of the electorate...

I don't define "left" this way and I don't fit neatly on the left-right axis anyway, but in any case I don't see your point. Do (self-identified) conservatives think that PBS or NPR is non-biased or mildly right? If most progressives think a program is just fine, while most conservatives think it's biased, well, it paints a pretty clear picture to me. Shall we ask, I don't know -- peb or Donn?

Kaa

Garret
10-10-2012, 11:19 AM
Don't you guys know that anything to the left of Fox is "left-biased"?

Those who describe it as such are full of beans (please replace that with another word) & it shows that they've never listened to NPR news for any length of time to get a feel for how they balance things. Heck, there are studies showing that their guests are 60 something percent right & people on the left are complaining they are right-biased.

Seems to me that is both sides say they are biased, they must be just about dead center.....

leikec
10-10-2012, 11:21 AM
I don't define "left" this way and I don't fit neatly on the left-right axis anyway, but in any case I don't see your point. Do (self-identified) conservatives think that PBS or NPR is non-biased or mildly right? If most progressives think a program is just fine, while most conservatives think it's biased, well, it paints a pretty clear picture to me. Shall we ask, I don't know -- peb or Donn?

Kaa


You just proved my point--conservatives think they are the center. The rest of us know you aren't.

Jeff C

Kaa
10-10-2012, 11:22 AM
Why don't you use your imagination a little, and I'll make some editorial corrections. ;)

My imagination is likely to be different from yours :-)

Kaa

Kaa
10-10-2012, 11:25 AM
You just proved my point--conservatives think they are the center. The rest of us know you aren't.

I'm not a conservative and I don't think you understood my post, it does not assume that the conservatives believe they are the center. Try reading it again, slower this time :-)

Kaa

bamamick
10-10-2012, 11:26 AM
I listen to NPR on Alabama Public Radio every day, and watch PBS on WSRE out of Pensacola quite a lot. I donate money to APR and will continue to do so for as long as they are around. I do not hear this 'right' or 'left' thing that so many other people claim to hear. Maybe that's because I am not listening for it? To me it's just information, to use, or not use, as I see fit.

Quite honestly though, public broadcasting is so very much more than just news, and if I could get all of those programs I so enjoy in one place somewhere else I don't know where that would be.

Theatening to shut down the funding for public broadcasting by either party would be one good reason for me to vote for the other.

Mickey Lake

leikec
10-10-2012, 11:29 AM
I'm not a conservative and I don't think you understood my post, it does not assume that the conservatives believe they are the center. Try reading it again, slower this time :-)

Kaa


I read very well, thank you. I've read a lot of what you've written since I joined the forum in 2009. As to your remark about not being a conservative...well, I guess I can only respond to that one way:

:D :D :D :D :D :D


Jeff C

Kaa
10-10-2012, 11:31 AM
I've concluded you're an idiot, and I've decided I don't much like you. Just want to go on record with that ;)

Oh, good. I like things like that to be on the record.

But I thought you've decided that you don't like me a rather long time ago?

Kaa

Kaa
10-10-2012, 11:47 AM
...but I gather you knew that

You weren't particularly subtle :-D


I would imagine I'm not alone in my oppinion either on this forum or off.

Hopefully not. Being liked by everyone is not a good thing.

Kaa

Concordia 33
10-10-2012, 11:53 AM
This one is hysterical!

Obama didn't bring up the issue of PBS as a potential budget cut.... ROMNEY did!

Apparently, the 0.012% of the budget that it consumes was so severe, that he felt compelled to point it out. :):)

What is hysterical is that it is a nontroversy. Yet president Obama's campaign paid for a person to dress as big bird at Romney rallies. Seriously, doesn't president Obama and his team have more important issues than saving Big Bird's job. If you listened to Romney in the debate, it is pretty obvious that President Obama made a mountain out of a mole hill - primarily because he cannot run on his own record.

.012% is still over $26 Million. Maybe that isn't much to you, but it is to me - I'll take it if you don't want it. How many billions of the federal budget are consumed by small expenditures (those below $100 Million)? By not fretting over little expenses, they start to add up to one big expense. But if you prefer to be deliberately obtuse then you are free to enjoy the bliss that it creates for you.

Joe (SoCal)
10-10-2012, 11:57 AM
Touched a nerve ;) I'm a happy man :D

Finishing a nice pint of Guinness and a French dip with "freedom fries" at my local pub
Foster out

Garret
10-10-2012, 12:33 PM
Touched a nerve ;) I'm a happy man :D

Finishing a nice pint of Guinness and a French dip with "freedom fries" at my local pub
Foster out

Freedom Dip. Sheesh Joe! You'll never make it as a good furriner basher if you use the "F" word!

Landrith
10-10-2012, 12:57 PM
You can't do Zip in the GOP that isn't in the interest of Big Oil. Why would we kill the social engineering apparatus our party depends on that keeps US citizens being presented with the concerns of Standard Oil and Wall Street as if they were legitimate national security interests. Or that reinforces a false Left Right view of political events and maintains the big corporate orthodoxy of "approved candidates and messages." Duh. Its called National Petroleum Radio for a reason.

I am an arch right winger but I will readily watch Link tv, Current Tv or would have listened to Pacifica. Real is worth saving. Subsidizing big corporate's propaganda is stupid.

john l
10-10-2012, 01:21 PM
What is hysterical is that it is a nontroversy. Yet president Obama's campaign paid for a person to dress as big bird at Romney rallies. Seriously, doesn't president Obama and his team have more important issues than saving Big Bird's job. If you listened to Romney in the debate, it is pretty obvious that President Obama made a mountain out of a mole hill - primarily because he cannot run on his own record.

.012% is still over $26 Million. Maybe that isn't much to you, but it is to me - I'll take it if you don't want it. How many billions of the federal budget are consumed by small expenditures (those below $100 Million)? By not fretting over little expenses, they start to add up to one big expense. But if you prefer to be deliberately obtuse then you are free to enjoy the bliss that it creates for you.

perhaps you can provide a list of other programs that need cutting too...and then prioritize them. i understand a cut across the board..but elimination of a channel that obviously more than 51% of the public are willing to pay for sounds about as unpartisian as bush2 mandate claim.
sorry but making pbs the priority budget cut in bloated overall spending make Romeny sound pretty partisian and foolish.

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-10-2012, 01:24 PM
You can't do Zip in the GOP that isn't in the interest of Big Oil. Why would we kill the social engineering apparatus our party depends on that keeps US citizens being presented with the concerns of Standard Oil and Wall Street as if they were legitimate national security interests. Or that reinforces a false Left Right view of political events and maintains the big corporate orthodoxy of "approved candidates and messages." Duh. Its called National Petroleum Radio for a reason.

I am an arch right winger but I will readily watch Link tv, Current Tv or would have listened to Pacifica. Real is worth saving. Subsidizing big corporate's propaganda is stupid.

"Duh" is right. Other than you being an arch right-winger the rest of that epistle is a miss-mash. Got any examples to flesh out what you were trying to get at?

David W Pratt
10-10-2012, 01:34 PM
Comments here about NPR are uniformly positive (perhaps the only unanimous position in The Bilge) it could prolly make it as a commercial station, especially if they can get Car Talk to continue

johnw
10-10-2012, 01:50 PM
The amount of subsidy money given to PBS will keep the pentagon going for six hours.

And he wants to increase defense spending. This is not about balancing the budget, conservatives just don't like PBS.

Paul Pless
10-10-2012, 01:59 PM
I listen to it every single day, morning and evening.... and I think your claim of 'pronounced leftist bias' is total BS. If anything, the news reports of the past week or so strike me as pronounced rightist in nature.... they're giving Romney WAY more coverage than Obama.


Time spent covering a subject is hardly a good indicator of bias. For example, you post way more threads dedicated to Romney, Republicans, and the 1% than you do Obama, Democrats, and the OWS movement, yet no one here could mistake your emphasis on the right as a positive bias in their favour. . .

Paul Pless
10-10-2012, 02:00 PM
Public broadcasting is biased mildly right of dead center. Only in the land to the contrarian negative right would PBS/CPB be seen as "left". You want left, listen to Pacifica.you're a funny guy!

john l
10-10-2012, 02:07 PM
now, now guys...just remember "W's" words of wisdom..."the fish and man can co- exist" and if they can so can dems and repubs.

John of Phoenix
10-10-2012, 02:09 PM
The amount of subsidy money given to PBS will keep the pentagon going for six hours.How much would reds spend to get control of another radio and TV network? They muzzle NPR for a pittance and they want to throw it away. Brilliant.

Landrith
10-10-2012, 02:11 PM
And we need that defense spending to further the intervention in the Mid East that Big Oil needs as it changes out our senior vested puppet dictators with younger cheaper ones. PBS and even the beautiful Gwen Ifill are just like a Walmart commercial. Meanwhile behind the camera, Walmart is using contractors for illegal alien janitors, firing older supervisory employees, defeating unions and bringing over slave labor products. If you believe in Academic Left and Liberal Humanism ideals, then think critically why PBS is presenting the news they do, you have to start questioning whether the patronage of the Rockefeller foundation and the rest really drive the content you think is unbiased.

Israel has a role in the Anglo-American geopolitical game that emphasizes control of oil. However, notwithstanding limited coverage of occupation abuses, the PBS perspective presented about our strongest ally in the region is different than the majority of Israel's population, its citizen's demonstrations and even its newspapers communicate. Instead it is far more likely to be Neocon warmongering stuff, presented as legitimate.

Kevin T
10-10-2012, 02:19 PM
. . .

.012% is still over $26 Million. Maybe that isn't much to you, but it is to me - I'll take it if you don't want it. How many billions of the federal budget are consumed by small expenditures (those below $100 Million)? By not fretting over little expenses, they start to add up to one big expense. But if you prefer to be deliberately obtuse then you are free to enjoy the bliss that it creates for you.

Aw come on Hoss, you can't honestly believe this, can you?

$26 million in public funding for a station that a majority of Americans endorse, to say nothing of the issue that some of the children's programming is the only viable pre-K learning that some communities will ever get near.

But we don't hear a peep out of you when the man from Bain starts advocating to give the Pentagon two trillion additional dollars they never asked for and some of the promises he has made are to build additional battleships, and three new submarines. I wasn't aware that Al Qaieda presented an underwater threat. <sarcasm off>

Seriously C33 you are really stretching the bounds of credibility if you get in a twist over 26 mm for PBS and let the other Romney nonsense go by the wayside.

I also noticed the nice little "shot" you threw at Norm by using a word he has used in the past "nontroversy" you really come across as having it in for the guy, as you respond almost immediately after he posts. The only person I saw do that more was probably Jamie, but he's currently on the sidelines and recuperating, what he do? Tag you to go in for him pro wrestling style, you must be very proud at all you've accomplished in his absence.

Curtism
10-10-2012, 02:28 PM
Duh. Its called National Petroleum Radio for a reason.

When I first heard this heard this notion, I could never really sort it out, but that was back before the Gulf oil spill debacle. As all the coverage started to unfold, attemtps to stop the flow and clean up efforts with dispersants, etc. it became clear that NPR was parroting the same sunny predictions and lowball estimates the reast of the corporate media was spewing at the time, almost in perfect sequence. The lockstep was deliberate and glaringly obvious.

Thanks for speaking up.

Shang
10-10-2012, 02:35 PM
Romney's comment that President Obama is more fixated on saving Big Bird's job than that of the rest of the country is spot on. That said Big Bird's job is quite secure. Sesame Street is a financially viable children's entertainment program without the need of direct subsidies. They have great marketing of their sesame street products, and could survive quite well in the free market. I do not think it is a bad thing to subsidize the rest of public television if we were flush with cash - we are not. Like every person that lives within a budget, we cut out non-essentials during lean financial times. I think that we are clearly in a time of great financial stress and need to cut ALL non-essentials such as public television. Which is not to say that it is an unworthy investment, just not an essential one.

"...we are clearly in a time of great financial stress and need to cut ALL non-essentials..."

Agreed. Let's also agree that chief among the non-essentials are massive tax breaks for the ultra wealthy, so as an act of good faith, let's begin by asking that the very wealthy pay their fair share instead of allowing them to snatch away programs that benefit the majority of the nation.

TomF
10-10-2012, 02:37 PM
I've gotta say, $26M for a stake in a public broadcaster that's nationwide in the US is astoundingly cheap. For comparison, that's roughly 3 days worth of the Health Care budget here in tiny New Brunswick.

Kevin T
10-10-2012, 02:45 PM
I've gotta say, $26M for a stake in a public broadcaster that's nationwide in the US is astoundingly cheap. For comparison, that's roughly 3 days worth of the Health Care budget here in tiny New Brunswick.

CC33 went with the $26M figure, actually I think it's closer to 400M or $1.35 per American, about a third of the cost to rent a DVD in my area at the locally owned Video rental place. Its got to go I tell you, its got to go, this PBS funding is going to bring down the Republic!:rolleyes:

Paul Pless
10-10-2012, 02:50 PM
CC33 went with the $26M figure, actually I think it's closer to 400M or $1.35 per American, about a third of the cost to rent a DVD in my area at the locally owned Video rental place. Its got to go I tell you, its got to go, this PBS funding is going to bring down the Republic!:rolleyes:The F22 program would have funded NPR and PBS for 200 years. . .

skuthorp
10-10-2012, 03:04 PM
Haven't read the whole thread yet, time, but attempting to silence any critical voices seems like something Putin does and another step on the road to oligarchy.

Kevin T
10-10-2012, 03:06 PM
The F22 program would have funded NPR and PBS for 200 years. . .

Word!

Dave Gray
10-10-2012, 03:11 PM
It seems to me republicans have been talking about getting rid of PBS since at least the Reagan years. Maybe I should make this a Romney style claim of fact?

Tom Montgomery
10-10-2012, 03:12 PM
I listen to a lot of NPR and I find their 'news programs' to be fairly well balanced but their 'news type' programs, i..e political talk to tend towards the left in a restrained manner.
NPR has a pronounced leftist bias and I'd rather have them accept it and fly the proper flag instead of pretending to be "objective" whatever that might mean.

It's funny how only the left-wing people think PBS/NPR is non-biased or "mildly right". All y'all think it might indicate something? You consider Paul Pless to be left-wing?

You are just another example of how the GOP has veered to the far right since the Reagan administration.

Concordia 33
10-10-2012, 03:17 PM
CC33 went with the $26M figure, actually I think it's closer to 400M or $1.35 per American, about a third of the cost to rent a DVD in my area at the locally owned Video rental place. Its got to go I tell you, its got to go, this PBS funding is going to bring down the Republic!:rolleyes:

It makes it much easier to spend money when you divide it by 300 million Americans The problem is that it is still real money, and if the amount is so damn small then clearly they can live without it! If they can't live without it then it really isn't that small an amount of money no matter how many ways you divide it. Just how many government expenditures are as small as $2 per American. I'll bet there are quite a few. And if you total them up, I wonder how much that would come out to be.

When we are going over budget by over a Trillions of dollars, I don't care it the expense comes out to $100 per American, or 1 cent per American - If it isn't essential it should be cut. Including every Raptor, Stealth Bomber and solar subsidy. If you can't pay cash for it then you shouldn't buy it.

skuthorp
10-10-2012, 03:19 PM
"When we are going over budget by over a Trillions of dollars, I don't care it the expense comes out to $100 per American, or 1 cent per American - If it isn't essential it should be cut. Including every Raptor, Stealth Bomber and solar subsidy. If you can't pay cash for it then you shouldn't buy it."
Does that include the budget for buying politicians?

Kaa
10-10-2012, 03:20 PM
You are just another example of how the GOP...

I'm a fine example :-D especially noticing how I'm not a member of GOP and don't even like it much.. :-P

Kaa

Tom Montgomery
10-10-2012, 03:21 PM
I take it you are some other variety of right-wing nutter.

John of Phoenix
10-10-2012, 03:21 PM
If you can't pay cash for it then you shouldn't buy it. Now that's the kind of thinking that WILL bring down the Republic. Tell it to GE, Johnson & Johnson, Bank of America, Alcoa, ExxonMobile, McDonalds, etc.

Tom Montgomery
10-10-2012, 03:22 PM
Yep. Just more rote, unthoughtful, ideological nonsense.

Garret
10-10-2012, 03:27 PM
Including every Raptor, Stealth Bomber and solar subsidy. If you can't pay cash for it then you shouldn't buy it.

You left out a few: oil, nuclear, farm, defense, etc. etc.

So - every American oughta be able to pay $ for a house? The gov't should never use credit? C'mon....

I will completely agree it needs to use far less.

Concordia 33
10-10-2012, 03:32 PM
Now that's the kind of thinking that WILL bring down the Republic. Tell it to GE, Johnson & Johnson, Bank of America, Alcoa, ExxonMobile, McDonalds, etc.

If GE or Johnson & Johnson borrow money, they pay it back or their assets are liquidated to satisfy the debt. That's hardly the justification for a country to have an ever growing national debt. We have never tried to hold the debt let alone reduce it. Right now 31 cents of every tax dollar is going towards covering the cost of borrowing. That is a formula for disaster no matter how much you would like to rationalize it away.

FYI: Johnson & Johnson doesn't really borrow money. They have so much free cash that they cannot find enough products or companies to purchase/develop and as a result they give a very nice cash dividend to investors every quarter. They would be a bad example of why you should borrow money.

Tom Montgomery
10-10-2012, 03:40 PM
I also hate the wild acceleration of the U.S. debt over the last 30 years.

Let's examine closely and honestly how it came about. I complained for eight years right here in the WBF Bilge that G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney were bankrupting the nation.

The bald assertion that the Federal government should never, under any circumstances, indulge in deficit spending is silly. Ideas like a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution are, frankly, ignorant.

Paul Pless
10-10-2012, 03:40 PM
You consider Paul Pless to be left-wing?Are my centrist views really that transparent?

Tom Montgomery
10-10-2012, 03:46 PM
Kaa doesn't think you are a centrist. He has a black and white view. You MUST be a lefty.

Concordia 33
10-10-2012, 03:46 PM
You left out a few: oil, nuclear, farm, defense, etc. etc.

So - every American oughta be able to pay $ for a house? The gov't should never use credit? C'mon....

I will completely agree it needs to use far less.

Far less? How about we just try to not raise the debt? We are going down over one Trillion dollars per year. We are saddling our great-great grandchildren with debt to satisfy our wants for today. How about not passing along our sins to our children? As a Babyboomer, I am embarrassed for the condition that my generation has left this country, and I do not think it is fair to let future generations deal with our lack of spending discipline. I'm not saying that every government expense is bad, but how about cutting a little closer to the bone.

The country is in a terrible situation right now, but while private sector underemployment is at 7.8% government workers are at 4.1%. I think we need to get people back to work, but the way to do it isn't by finding them a government job. We have a wasteful government that spends money like a drunken sailor.

Kaa
10-10-2012, 03:47 PM
I take it you are some other variety of right-wing nutter.

Would you like to join Joe CSOH in a joyful reaffirmation of your beliefs..? :-D


I've concluded you're an idiot, and I've decided I don't much like you.

Kaa

Kaa
10-10-2012, 03:48 PM
Kaa doesn't think you are a centrist.

I said something about Paul's political views..? 8-0

Kaa

Tom Montgomery
10-10-2012, 03:49 PM
You seem likable to me. But very wrong most of the time regarding politics and the good of the nation.

Tom Montgomery
10-10-2012, 03:50 PM
I said something about Paul's political views..?
Ummm... reread the OP and your initial response.

1+1=2

Concordia 33
10-10-2012, 03:50 PM
I also hate the wild acceleration of the U.S. debt over the last 30 years.

Let's examine closely and honestly how it came about. I complained for eight years right here in the WBF Bilge that G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney were bankrupting the nation.

The bald assertion that the Federal government should never, under any circumstances, indulge in deficit spending is silly. Ideas like a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution are, frankly, ignorant.


Who said a government should never borrow? We justifiably borrowed a lot of money during WW2 and the great depression. But when have we even tried to stop the debt from growing? I'm not even discussing lowering the debt, I want to know when we last stopped the debt from growing. I think that last happened around 1920 - nearly 100 years ago. Don't you think it's time for the balloon loan to be called due and payable?

Tom Montgomery
10-10-2012, 03:53 PM
Who said a government should never borrow?
I'll respond with a question:

Over the last 30 years, the members of what U.S. political party have introduced legislation for a balanced budget amendment in the U.S. Congress?

Concordia 33
10-10-2012, 03:59 PM
I'll respond with a question:

Over the last 30 years, the members of what U.S. political party have introduced legislation for a balanced budget amendment in the U.S. Congress?

The GOP. This has nothing to do with what I said. And even if we had a balanced budget amendment, both Republicans and Democrats would find ways to overspend. The issue is that we are going further and further into debt at a time when we should look at minimally not going any further in debt. If the government has plenty of cash, and its
citizens are not saddled with a burdensome tax rate, then I think subsidies for PBS would be wonderful, but now is not that time I don't care how little it costs per American.

Paul Pless
10-10-2012, 04:00 PM
I'll respond with a question:

Over the last 30 years, the members of what U.S. political party have introduced legislation for a balanced budget amendment in the U.S. Congress?

On the other hand, which sitting President (hint hint hint) as a senator voted against raising the debt limit?:D

Curtism
10-10-2012, 04:02 PM
The GOP. This has nothing to do with what I said. And even if we had a balanced budget amendment, both Republicans and Democrats would find ways to overspend. The issue is that we are going further and further into debt at a time when we should look at minimally not going any further in debt. If the government has plenty of cash, and its
citizens are not saddled with a burdensome tax rate, then I think subsidies for PBS would be wonderful, but now is not that time I don't care how little it costs per American.

Romney should use that quote on the dusty trail. Or, maybe he already has.

Tom Montgomery
10-10-2012, 04:04 PM
The GOP. This has nothing to do with what I said.
Shirley you are joking.

Concordia 33
10-10-2012, 04:05 PM
On the other hand, which sitting President (hint hint hint) as a senator voted against raising the debt limit?:D

You always like the zingers!

Gee, that wouldn't be Illinois Senator Barrack Obama would it? The same person that said "...taking out credit card from the bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt ....... was unpatriotic"

Kaa
10-10-2012, 04:06 PM
Ummm... reread the OP and your initial response.

1+1=2

Let's look at the OP with relevant parts bolded:


Most surveys of listeners and watchers of news type programs assert there is no political bias to their programming. I won't personally go so far as to say that. I listen to a lot of NPR and I find their 'news programs' to be fairly well balanced but their 'news type' programs, i..e political talk to tend towards the left in a restrained manner.

And my response included my opinion (which does not imply anything about Paul's views) that NPR/PBS is biased to the left.

So how did you do your sums, again?

Kaa

Tom Montgomery
10-10-2012, 04:06 PM
On the other hand, which sitting President (hint hint hint) as a senator voted against raising the debt limit?:D
A stupid vote, IMO.

But they all make stupid choices here and there, don't they? It's all about who best represents your views. No one represents my views 100% I don't expect that from anyone.

Kaa
10-10-2012, 04:07 PM
I want to know when we last stopped the debt from growing.

That was when Clinton got a bunch of tax revenue from the dot-com boom.

Kaa

Concordia 33
10-10-2012, 04:07 PM
Shirley you are joking.

I'm not joking, and stop calling me Shirley.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=0A5t5_O8hdA

Tom Montgomery
10-10-2012, 04:08 PM
Let's look at the OP with relevant parts bolded:
You must admire Bill Clinton. You a parse a statement as well as him.

Concordia 33
10-10-2012, 04:09 PM
That was when Clinton got a bunch of tax revenue from the dot-com boom.

Kaa

No, Clinton "balanced the budget" but he actually added to the debt because of the crazy way that the CBO scores the budget it is considered balanced even when the debt increases.

Kevin T
10-10-2012, 04:16 PM
Would you like to join Joe CSOH in a joyful reaffirmation of your beliefs..? :-D



Kaa


Yo! Can you hook a brother up with a comp on that club's "velvet rope line" list. :rolleyes:

Kaa you come across as, "anything to the left of Ghengis Khan is on the far left," get real brother man, because your use of the English language is making you appear as Tom M put it, as some variety of a right wing nutter.

Kaa
10-10-2012, 04:22 PM
You must admire Bill Clinton. You a parse a statement as well as him.

In other words, I can read and you consider this to be an uncommon skill? :-D

Kaa

Tom Montgomery
10-10-2012, 04:25 PM
Yeah... that's the ticket!

Kaa
10-10-2012, 04:29 PM
Yo! Can you hook a brother up with a comp on that club's "velvet rope line" list. :rolleyes:

Free admission! :-) It's a fairly popular club but I don't think they started to limit membership yet. Get in while you can! :-D


Kaa you come across as, "anything to the left of Ghengis Khan is on the far left," get real brother man, because your use of the English language is making you appear as Tom M put it, as some variety of a right wing nutter.

That's OK :-) I don't care much about appearances and as I have repeatedly said, sanity is overrated. However trying to stuff me into a pigeonhole usually... leads to problems :-)

Kaa

PhaseLockedLoop
10-10-2012, 05:20 PM
you're a funny guy!

What's so funny about that? You don't seem to know what "left" means. Read some genuine lefty literature (say, the Progressive, or look at Counterpunch), or look at Argentina, if you want responsible left discussion. I defy you to find anyone to the right of current US Republicans. Someone slightly to the left of extreme right-wingers is not a freaking leftist. Politically, NPR is a quite conventional voice. But of course politics isn't all they do. It is all most media outlets do.

Paul Pless
10-10-2012, 05:27 PM
What's so funny about that? You don't seem to know what "left" means.I was of course referring to the state of the current political spectrum in the United States. In our current scenario no one here can seriously state that NPR reflects an opinion that is right of center. . .

Canoeyawl
10-11-2012, 10:29 AM
In our current scenario no one here can seriously state that NPR reflects an opinion that is right of center. . .

Altough NPR may be slightly more liberal than today's average US voter, I could suggest a carefully guarded bias to the right, and a sample look at a list of sponsors and the board of directors might validate that.

Although dated, here is an example (http://12bytes.org/articles/npr-national-public-radio-or-national-propaganda-radio)...

Board of Directors

Sitting on the board of directors for CPB as of Sep, 2009, are (emphasis mine)


Ernest J. Wilson III (chair), Democrat, nominated to first term by President Clinton in 2000. Renominated to second term November 2004 by President George W. Bush, confirmed by U.S. Senate November 2004. Term expires 2010.
Beth Courtney (vice chair), independent, nominated April 2003 by President George W. Bush, confirmed by U.S. Senate December 2003. Term expires 2010.
Chris Boskin, Republican, nominated June 2006 by President George W. Bush, confirmed by U.S. Senate September 2006. Term expires 2012.
Patricia Cahill, Democrat, nominated July 2009 by President Obama, confirmed by U.S. Senate August 2009. Term expires 2014.
Gay Hart Gaines, Republican, nominated December 2003 by President George W. Bush, confirmed by U.S. Senate November 2004. Term expires 2010.
Lori Gilbert, Democrat, nominated May 2008 by President George W. Bush, confirmed by U.S. Senate October 2008. term expires 2012.
Former Senator David H. Pryor, Democrat, nominated to first term by President George W. Bush in 2006. Renominated to second term May 2008 by President George W. Bush, confirmed by U.S. Senate October 2008. Term expires 2014.
Bruce Ramer, Republican, nominated May 2008 by President George W. Bush, confirmed by U.S. Senate October 2008. Terms expires 2012.
Elizabeth Sembler, Republican, nominated May 2008 by President George W. Bush, confirmed by U.S. Senate October 2008. Term expires 2014.

Concordia 33
10-11-2012, 11:23 AM
How essential is the carried interest loophole, used exclusively by people who are in the top 0.1% of the population? Any tax break is also a tax expenditure.... so, by your theory, the carried interest loophole (over $4 billion per year) vastly exceeds the cost of NPR (0.012% of the budget).

Which one ought to be cut first? The one which benefits tens of millions of people, and costs 1/8 as much.... or the one that benefits ONLY a few hundred super-rich folks, and costs eight times as much?


I'm fine with both. Take them both out. And the joint fighter, the Osprey, a carrier group, rolling back on the breadth of some of the entitlement programs. They all need to go on the table. Each American citizen is born with a $51,000 national debt for things that did not go towards benefiting them or their generation. It's about time we give our kids back their future.

Frankly I think we should get rid of all deductions and credits, and pay a lower flat tax or possibly a graduated income tax, but with the upper brackets not being more than 15% above the lowest bracket.

Kaa
10-11-2012, 11:34 AM
No, Clinton "balanced the budget" but he actually added to the debt because of the crazy way that the CBO scores the budget it is considered balanced even when the debt increases.

Yes, you're correct.

Looking at http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm the last time nominal debt actually went down was in 1957.

Kaa

Concordia 33
10-11-2012, 11:51 AM
This is NOT true of Public Broadcasting.. whose cost is miniscule, and whose existence has enriched the lives and educations of two generations. As a father and grandfather, I can attest to the worth of PBS and NPR in terms of what it did for MY kids, and what it is doing for my grandchildren.... and for mere pennies per American.

There are some things well worth paying for.

The way businesses and governments get into financial trouble is not from the big ticket items, but the small ones. Everyone says it's not that much, and we need it..... but enough "small" things can easily eclipse a "big" ticket item. If we need to save money, then all expenditures large and small should be on the table. Though I like PBS and both my kids grew up to Sesame Street, it is a discretionary expense, and should not be considered until the government is more fiscally under control. PBS is not worth paying for when we are going down by a Trillion Dollars per year.

FYI... Sesame Street doesn't need our money..... The are financially viable as a free standing business.

john l
10-11-2012, 01:21 PM
Who said a government should never borrow? We justifiably borrowed a lot of money during WW2 and the great depression. But when have we even tried to stop the debt from growing? I'm not even discussing lowering the debt, I want to know when we last stopped the debt from growing. I think that last happened around 1920 - nearly 100 years ago. Don't you think it's time for the balloon loan to be called due and payable?

you seem to suggest that borrowing money is justified at times...you cite the great depression as one. could it be assumed that a large part, if not all of obama's borrowing was for addressing a financial collapse and heading off another great depression? in contrast, could it be assumed that
most of W's borrowing was for an elective attack on iraq? reagans debt as a means of crushing the russians while lining the pockets of MIC shareholders, another discretionary expense? and wasn't Reagans spending a form of wealth redistribution from the middle class to MIC shareholder? When republican logic is applied universally they appear to FOS IMO. Starting a government spending cut on PBS is not only a riduculous place to start, it can mean only one thing - partisian baloney. The only reason PBS exists, is because the government, the people, realized it was necessary as the type of programing wasn't commercially available for a lot of reasons. TO say it's unnecesssary now is certainly code for idealistic commercialism as the cure to all ills. I wish it were true, but it's not. and anyone that professes that is fooling themselves.
and if they aren't fooling themselves they have other reasons to feel this way. Romeny may be more centrist than the party that selected him,
but either he's with them or he's agaisnt them?

johnw
10-11-2012, 01:21 PM
The way businesses and governments get into financial trouble is not from the big ticket items, but the small ones. Everyone says it's not that much, and we need it..... but enough "small" things can easily eclipse a "big" ticket item. If we need to save money, then all expenditures large and small should be on the table. Though I like PBS and both my kids grew up to Sesame Street, it is a discretionary expense, and should not be considered until the government is more fiscally under control. PBS is not worth paying for when we are going down by a Trillion Dollars per year.

FYI... Sesame Street doesn't need our money..... The are financially viable as a free standing business.

No, that's not the case. It's usually kicking big commitments down the road, like pensions, which always seem like they are going to be someone else's problem to the people who negotiate them, or committing to a big project that goes way over budget, or the people with money left for unincorporated areas and only poor people live within the city, making it impossible to pay to keep of services like police and fire. If you look at actual municipal bankruptcies, police and fire pensions, utilities projects gone wrong, and loss of tax base are the big problems.

The small things are easy enough to cut.

Kaa
10-11-2012, 01:30 PM
Hey you want the government to save some money? I've got an idea...

http://media.reason.com/mc/mriggs/2012_10/40Years0fDrugWarFailure.jpg

(http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/11/forty-years-of-drug-war-failure-in-a-sin)

Kaa

johnw
10-11-2012, 02:37 PM
Hey you want the government to save some money? I've got an idea...

http://media.reason.com/mc/mriggs/2012_10/40Years0fDrugWarFailure.jpg

(http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/11/forty-years-of-drug-war-failure-in-a-sin)

Kaa

Does that even include the cost of keeping all those non-violent drug offenders in jail?

Paul Pless
10-11-2012, 02:57 PM
Hey you want the government to save some money? I've got an idea...

http://media.reason.com/mc/mriggs/2012_10/40Years0fDrugWarFailure.jpg

(http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/11/forty-years-of-drug-war-failure-in-a-sin)

Kaa

I will toke to that. . .

Concordia 33
10-11-2012, 03:06 PM
Makes sense, but only for people who know the cost of everything, and the value of nothing.

Please....regale me with the dollar value of PBS what do we get for 24 million?

Concordia 33
10-11-2012, 03:13 PM
You've just defeated your own argument, demonstrating that you're well aware of the cost, but you have no way to place a value on it.

Here's a hint: the value isn't merely measured in cost. If you can't see the value, but can only see the cost, then I guess there's little point in you watching PBS or listening to NPR, right?: :)

No...I am saying that they get donations from corporations and viewers (I have contributed on numerous occasions), but you seem to believe that there is some "value" (your words) that we all get by using tax dollars vs asking them to generate a sufficient revenue stream like every other national network in the US. Since YOU don't seem to be able to articulate any value, I assume there isn't really a value, it is just a handy talking point.

Just saw this on youtube....

Dennis Miller hit the nail on the head on this issue with an assist from Bill O'Reilly


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=oSzIiEsrMyg

Kevin T
10-11-2012, 03:27 PM
No...I am saying that they get donations from corporations and viewers (I have contributed on numerous occasions), but you seem to believe that there is some "value" (your words) that we all get by using tax dollars vs asking them to generate a sufficient revenue stream like every other national network in the US. Since YOU don't seem to be able to articulate any value, I assume there isn't really a value, it is just a handy talking point.

I think one of the primary values in PBS is that viewers, especially children, can watch a program and not be bombarded with advertisments for the latest breakfast cereal, or video game, and if you don't recognize the value in having your kids watch a program without advertising and receive a temporary reprieve from them filibustering you for whatever that "it" item of the moment is that was just advertised, then you've obviously never had children.

The single card voice overs at the end that say: "Brought to you by a generous donation from the Ford Foundation," hardly counts as advertising, nor would it be a workable model in "standard commercial television" SCT. The other thing that is kind of nice about PBS is that a lot of the programing seems pretty free of the ubiquitous product placements which tends to muddy the message, and makes a lot of production companies pretty beholden on SCT.

johnw
10-11-2012, 03:31 PM
It's the taxpayers' money, and if they want it spent on PBS, why shouldn't it be?


But 55 percent of likely voters said PBS “is a worthwhile place to spend taxpayers’ money.” Only 35 percent said “the government cannot afford to subsidize public television.” Even a quarter of voters who plan to vote for Mr. Romney (http://p.washingtontimes.com/topics/mitt-romney/) said they would like to see the money keep flowing.

Read more: Inside Politics: Voters say PBS deserves funding - Washington Times (http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/8/inside-politics-voters-say-pbs-deserves-funding/#ixzz291Zth6rp) http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/8/inside-politics-voters-say-pbs-deserves-funding/#ixzz291Zth6rp
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=ctd-fI3Dar4z1uacwqm_6r&u=washtimes)

Concordia 33
10-11-2012, 03:35 PM
I think one of the primary values in PBS is that viewers, especially children, can watch a program and not be bombarded with advertisments for the latest breakfast cereal, or video game, and if you don't recognize the value in having your kids watch a program without advertising and receive a temporary reprieve from them filibustering you for whatever that "it" item of the moment is that was just advertised, then you've obviously never had children.

The single card voice overs at the end that say: "Brought to you by a generous donation from the Ford Foundation," hardly counts as advertising, nor would it be a workable model in "standard commercial television" SCT. The other thing that is kind of nice about PBS is that a lot of the programing seems pretty free of the ubiquitous product placements which tends to muddy the message, and makes a lot of production companies pretty beholden on SCT.

And what is the value of a re-run of a Lawrence Welk show from 1974? I will tell you that during "Membership Month" it is supremely annoying as they endlessly hype the need for donations.

Tom Montgomery
10-11-2012, 03:41 PM
BAH!

Lots of American taxpayers enjoy the opportunity to view Lawrence Welk reruns.

Let's face it... right-wing ideologues simply do not believe that public money should be spent in endeavors that "promote the general welfare."

Approximately 6 hours of Defense spending is spent on PBS every year.

Garret
10-11-2012, 03:52 PM
No...I am saying that they get donations from corporations and viewers (I have contributed on numerous occasions), but you seem to believe that there is some "value" (your words) that we all get by using tax dollars vs asking them to generate a sufficient revenue stream like every other national network in the US. Since YOU don't seem to be able to articulate any value, I assume there isn't really a value, it is just a handy talking point.

Just saw this on youtube....

Dennis Miller hit the nail on the head on this issue with an assist from Bill O'Reilly


If you're getting political advice from Dennis Miller, why not ask John Madden or Howard Cosell? On second thought, Cosell would probably be the best to ask.

ETA: One of the points you are missing about the gov't contributions is that it gives gov't control - see the list above. Bush appointees have a lot to say about what goes on @ CPB.

Kaa
10-11-2012, 03:52 PM
It's the taxpayers' money, and if they want it spent on PBS, why shouldn't it be?

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H. L. Mencken

:-)

Kaa

Concordia 33
10-11-2012, 03:52 PM
BAH!

Lots of American taxpayers enjoy the opportunity to view Lawrence Welk reruns.

Let's face it... right-wing ideologues simply do not believe that public money should be spent in endeavors that "promote the general welfare."

I think right wingers and the authors of the constitution also believed in the concept of a limited government. I do not see where subsidizing a TV network is holding true to that belief. You can make an argument for almost anything "promoting the general welfare" Including a new order for a dozen Stealth Bombers at $1 Billion each, or a manned mission to Mars (I like the idea of this one, but we cannot afford it right now). If there isn't some sensible filter for this, the debt would easily grow to 2 or 3 Trillion per year with a 75% tax rate on wage earners. If the tax rate was reasonably low, and the budget was balanced and we had regular annual surpluses, I would be all for sorts of enhancements but it can't be through confiscatory practices or though indebting future generations. We have a responsibility to our grand children and great grandchildren to make sure that they do not pay for our fiscal irresponsibility.

Kevin T
10-11-2012, 04:06 PM
And what is the value of a re-run of a Lawrence Welk show from 1974? I will tell you that during "Membership Month" it is supremely annoying as they endlessly hype the need for donations.

Jeebebus on a Cracker, C33 you really are one cold heartless cat.

What's so wrong if the Greatest Generation, that fought in WWII and built this country might find some enjoyment in their twilight years by being able to tune in a station like PBS and listen to the music of their generation, on a program they watched when they were building* this thing we call the United States. In your clamor for fiscal austerity must we really deny our 80 plus year old seniors a little joy.

My 87 year old father-in-law who was on the beach at Normandy 68 plus years ago on a cold, damp and overcast morning in June likes to dance with his wife in the living room every week during the broadcast, but as you said if it costs a penny or $1.35 god forbid we go forward with it.

I just wish I saw the same fervor to deny Exxon Mobil their billion dollar subsidies from the starboard side.

And if it's so annoying to be asked for donations, then change the channel, problem solved.

======================================
* Building in the sense of the post WWII building that took place, not the founding fathers sense of building before anybody goes all literal and wishes to parse the potential semantics of the asterisked sentence.

Tom Montgomery
10-11-2012, 04:16 PM
I think right wingers and the authors of the constitution also believed in the concept of a limited governmentIs that right? My understanding is that the Framers envisioned a living document that would be adapted regularly to changing circumstances. That this has not happened is due to our subsequent fear (read: conservatism). The Founders were FAR more "liberal" regarding the document they wrote. They would be appalled by our reverence of it.


I do not see where subsidizing a TV network is holding true to that belief.Of course you do not.


You can make an argument for almost anything "promoting the general welfare"I think the Founders intended that open-endedness.


Including a new order for a dozen Stealth Bombers at $1 Billion eachNah... this would clearly belong to "providing for the common defense"


, or a manned mission to Mars (I like the idea of this one, but we cannot afford it right now).The founding principle of the U.S. space program was to militarily occupy the high ground. If you don't think that continues to be the focus of NASA you are willfully ignorant. How many shuttle payloads were "classified?' Again: "providing for the common defense."


If there isn't some sensible filter for this, the debt would easily grow to 2 or 3 Trillion per year with a 75% tax rate on wage earners. If the tax rate was reasonably low, and the budget was balanced and we had regular annual surpluses, I would be all for sorts of enhancements but it can't be through confiscatory practices or though indebting future generations. We have a responsibility to our grand children and great grandchildren to make sure that they do not pay for our fiscal irresponsibility.Complete nonsense. Our outrageous national debt has primarily exploded since 2001.

Time to get real.

Kaa
10-11-2012, 04:27 PM
Time to get real.

:-D

http://www.lightweightfunny.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/dude-batman-darth.jpg

Kaa

Concordia 33
10-11-2012, 04:33 PM
Jeebebus on a Cracker, C33 you really are one cold heartless cat.

What's so wrong if the Greatest Generation, that fought in WWII and built this country might find some enjoyment in their twilight years by being able to tune in a station like PBS and listen to the music of their generation, on a program they watched when they were building* this thing we call the United States. In your clamor for fiscal austerity must we really deny our 80 plus year old seniors a little joy.

My 87 year old father-in-law who was on the beach at Normandy 68 plus years ago on a cold, damp and overcast morning in June likes to dance with his wife in the living room every week during the broadcast, but as you said if it costs a penny or $1.35 god forbid we go forward with it.

I just wish I saw the same fervor to deny Exxon Mobil their billion dollar subsidies from the starboard side.

And if it's so annoying to be asked for donations, then change the channel, problem solved.

======================================
* Building in the sense of the post WWII building that took place, not the founding fathers sense of building before anybody goes all literal and wishes to parse the potential semantics of the asterisked sentence.

If you think it is so popular, then it is reasonable to assume that is will be carried by networks, or to continue with PBS minus a federal subsidy. If it doesn't then it was really no more popular that the re-runs of any other long-lost TV shows. Lawrence Welk's airing of original episodes was on ABC a non-subsidized network.

john l
10-11-2012, 04:34 PM
before we single out NPR, we need to look at all gov spending and have an intelligent discussion about what needs to be cut. without knowing what's on the list, i can assure you that there are quite a few programs ahead of NPR. when that list is made and assessed a real discussion on spending can be had rather than the emotional one the right is making. and if you think about romneys supposedly good business rational his silly statement should raise all the questions need about his business, if not communication acumen. ther certainly is a heck of lot more bloated, wasteful
spending going on than npr. why not call out those? in fact where is that f..ing list?

Kevin T
10-11-2012, 04:35 PM
I think right wingers and the authors of the constitution also believed in the concept of a limited government.

. . . I would be all for sorts of enhancements but it can't be through confiscatory practices or though indebting future generations. We have a responsibility to our grand children and great grandchildren to make sure that they do not pay for our fiscal irresponsibility.

False, taxes are at the lowest they have ever been, or perhaps you'd like to go back to the rates of the fifties, which absolutely no one is advocating.

And I'd be willing to bet that when Mr. Romney loses the election he will have his accountant file an amended tax return and that 13 or 14% tax rate that he paid on his recent return, (by not taking all of those church deductions so that he could hold true to the statement that he never paid less then 14%,) he will take those additional deductions and it will push his tax rate to below 10%. Confiscatory my aunt fanny!

He's also the guy who said he wouldn't be qualified to be President if he didn't take all the deductions he was due, this time around though I guess he recognized that the optics on a sub 10% tax rate would be pretty bad.

Tom Montgomery
10-11-2012, 04:39 PM
If you think it is so popular, then it is reasonable to assume that is will be carried by networks, or to continue with PBS minus a federal subsidy. If it doesn't then it was really no more popular that the re-runs of any other long-lost TV shows. Lawrence Welk's airing of original episodes was on ABC a non-subsidized network.
As I have stated elsewhere, right-wing ideologues oppose any public money spent for "the general welfare."

They applaud public money spent on guns. They give a bronx cheer for public money spent on bread.

Concordia 33
10-11-2012, 04:43 PM
As I have stated elsewhere, right-wing ideologues oppose any public money spent for "the general welfare."

They applaud public money spent on guns. They give a bronx cheer for public money spent on bread.

Yes indeed the general welfare is threatened if Lawrence Welk cannot re-run for the 1000th time an episode that was first seen in 1974. That's quite a leap from that to being a right wing ideologue.

Tom Montgomery
10-11-2012, 04:47 PM
a
I would be all for sorts of enhancements but it can't be through confiscatory practices....
Get real.

What "confiscatory practices" does your feverish brain imagine is occurring in the U.S.?

Explain to us what your problem is with a representative democracy like the American Republic?

What alternative do you prefer?

Kevin T
10-11-2012, 04:49 PM
If you think it is so popular, then it is reasonable to assume that is will be carried by networks, or to continue with PBS minus a federal subsidy. If it doesn't then it was really no more popular that the re-runs of any other long-lost TV shows. Lawrence Welk's airing of original episodes was on ABC a non-subsidized network.

There aren't enough of that generation to make it commercially viable and you know it. I'm happy to give up the equivalent cost of a third of one DVD rental to bring a little joy to a generation that gave so much, as they slide into the final inning, you however seem to see this as just one more of our greatest sins as a nation of spendthrifts.

It's called altruism, you might want to look it up as you someday may wish to be the beneficiary of it. I just hope that anyone who might be extending a helping hand or a bit of comfort to you in your later years doesn't get wind of your true self by your attitudes displayed here.

You'll probably be okay though, as most truly altruistic people do it for reasons outside themselves, heck I'd even help you when your old and crustier, but call me crazy, I guess I'm just an altruistic human being.|;)

Tom Montgomery
10-11-2012, 04:55 PM
It's called altruism, you might want to look it up as you someday may wish to be the beneficiary of it. I just hope that anyone who might be extending a helping hand or a bit of comfort to you in your later years doesn't get wind of your true self by your attitudes displayed here.
**** altruism. These monsters believe in social Darwinism.

And, yes, I mean "monsters." The word captures both their astounding pettiness and the tremendous weight of the wealth that backs their views.

johnw
10-11-2012, 07:57 PM
If you think it is so popular, then it is reasonable to assume that is will be carried by networks, or to continue with PBS minus a federal subsidy. If it doesn't then it was really no more popular that the re-runs of any other long-lost TV shows. Lawrence Welk's airing of original episodes was on ABC a non-subsidized network.

The polls say the taxpayers want to spend their money on this. Why would you need more justification than that?

I'm guessing it has less to do with Lawrence Welk than with Big Bird. Sesame Street was pitched to the networks first, but an educational show that didn't sell bad food and plastic toys didn't appeal to them. Nor will it appeal to them the next time such a show is pitched.

Have you tuned into The Learning Channel lately? Does anyone?

As noted in Post 107, Americans apparently want PBS, and they want to get it by paying for it with their taxes. That's why we got PBS in the first place. Why should your judgment trump the majority of taxpayers?

Landrith
10-11-2012, 09:24 PM
Have you tuned into The Learning Channel lately? Does anyone?



You have a point there. The History Channel , Discovery and the rest devolved into bad "reality" shows.

Chip-skiff
10-11-2012, 10:07 PM
Here in the outback, National Public Radio is my window on the world. The US government does a great many things that I detest: letting public land and resources be ruined for short-term profit, giving money to Big Oil, running an economy and tax system rigged to favor the rich, and throwing away money on "defense" while allowing our infrastructure and public service to deteriorate.

Public radio is one government expenditure I favor with a whole heart. I contribute twice a year, and would give more in the event government funding was ended, to keep that window open.

johnw
10-12-2012, 12:55 AM
You have a point there. The History Channel , Discovery and the rest devolved into bad "reality" shows.

commercial pressures just produce something different.

Cedric Rhyn
10-12-2012, 03:13 AM
Total BS... why the hell should we subsidize a conglomeration that hardly needs it and is biased... We give them over 400 million each year and they are a viable brand that can make it on their own. This is certainly one of those situations that cannot pass the test of "is it worth it to borrow money to keep giving them funds"...

RodB.

NPR is one of the very few media outlets that is not driven by obligations to sponsors or advertisers. Freedom of the press? When a major advertiser doesnt like what some newpaper or whatever puts over to its public, you can be sure that the editor gets leaned on pretty hard. NPR is one of the very few remaining objective sources of information and is a public good that should be protected and nurtured at all costs.

Even I, 8000 miles away, have been known to listen to it.
Cedric Rhyn

john l
10-15-2012, 06:53 AM
The logic is baffling...get rid of PBS, then get rid of public schools, recreation departments, state parks, national parks
And even roads. They are all a burden on the taxpayer. Now take all those savings and build bombs.
Those that want to silence PBS simply want to control others. They claim it is politically biased because the relatively nueutral viewpoint isn't in sync with their own viewpoints and therefore biased.

AndyG
10-15-2012, 09:38 AM
commercial pressures just produce something different.

"Different" in this case being invariably "worse".

The relentless growth of advertising (both here and in the US) is killing quality TV.

Andy

Ted Hoppe
10-15-2012, 10:01 AM
Is Voice of America next?

The Voice of America is fully funded by the U.S. taxpayer. Congress appropriates funds annually. VOA's FY 2010 budget estimate was $206.5 million.

Canoeyawl
10-15-2012, 10:06 AM
commercial pressures just produce something different.

Take a look at Fox News to learn what commercial pressure will do.

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-15-2012, 08:03 PM
If you think it is so popular, then it is reasonable to assume that is will be carried by networks, or to continue with PBS minus a federal subsidy. If it doesn't then it was really no more popular that the re-runs of any other long-lost TV shows. Lawrence Welk's airing of original episodes was on ABC a non-subsidized network.

It's widely known, by those that want to know, that a big chunk of the PBS subsidy goes to NPR RADIO stations located in out off the way places that could not maintain the station with local funds.

"Man doth not live by Rush Limbaugh alone!"

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-15-2012, 08:22 PM
I think right wingers and the authors of the constitution also believed in the concept of a limited government. I do not see where subsidizing a TV network is holding true to that belief. You can make an argument for almost anything "promoting the general welfare" Including a new order for a dozen Stealth Bombers at $1 Billion each, or a manned mission to Mars (I like the idea of this one, but we cannot afford it right now). If there isn't some sensible filter for this, the debt would easily grow to 2 or 3 Trillion per year with a 75% tax rate on wage earners. If the tax rate was reasonably low, and the budget was balanced and we had regular annual surpluses, I would be all for sorts of enhancements but it can't be through confiscatory practices or though indebting future generations. We have a responsibility to our grand children and great grandchildren to make sure that they do not pay for our fiscal irresponsibility.

Wrong again! Why do you make things up?
The first government of the freed colonies WAS very limited. It was called the Articles of Confederation government.
There was this guy see? You may have heard of him. George Washington. He characterised the confederation government as " not respectable". The confederation had instituted a government that couldn't pay it's bills. The states remained souvereign so they could possibly pick up their skirts and go elsewhere. In short the confederation government was so small it was impractical. And therein lies the tale. Washington lived to see a constitution accepted that created the larger more muscular government he desired.
So watch what you say about Washington and the other framers. Claiming they were all brothers of your right-wing cabal is not a true statement. They were adventurous men. They didn't risk their necks to create some kind of penny-pinching, John Birch nirvana.
If you wanna' pass this course you have to read , "Ratification, The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788", by Pauline Maier".
' Later.

john l
10-16-2012, 02:37 PM
Is Voice of America next?

The Voice of America is fully funded by the U.S. taxpayer. Congress appropriates funds annually. VOA's FY 2010 budget estimate was $206.5 million.
i'd say voice of america should be eliminated before PBS. why should the us tax payer pay for radio programs for the rest of the world and not their own consumption?