I was opposed to the Iraq War but there was no opting-out of paying for that. The American republic is like that.
“Real environmentalists live in cities, and they visit what's left of the wilderness as gently and respectfully as possible.” — Donna Moulton, letter to the editor, Tucson Weekly, published on August 23, 2001
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
Basically, I want to continue federal funds to NPR and PBS. In brief, I think that they provide me with political news, as opposed to commercial radio news stations that instead provide political opinion.
Also, NPR and PBS are more prone to political discussion, whereas commercially sponsored shows tend towards political debate. NPR actually lets people talk and discuss issues, whereas commercially sponsored shows tend to validate their host in order to bring in their audience to bring about high ratings to bring in more advertising revenue.
Another point was that the reason why NPR and PBS is being targeted to have it's funding reduced is because of it's political news shows. However, not every show it airs is about politics or news. Some are about other subjects such as cuisine or automotive advice, and so is more educational than journalistic or entertaining.
One more point is that I commercially sponsored shows are more biased. This is because shows rely on corporate sponsorship to bring in ad revenue. If corporate sponsorship becomes the only way for journalists to express news, then they'll be less likely to publish reports that go against those corporations. So having only corporately sponsored news shows will be detrimental to the journalistic integrity of reporters, especially investigative journalists. I would prefer that the people have at least one source of news that doesn't have to worry about criticizing those who write their paychecks.
That's the long and short of why I want funding for NPR and PBS to continue.
Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.
I love NPR, but I don't think it's something the feds need to pay for.
That said, cutting it will do absolutely nothing for our deficit, either - therefore, cutting it should not be a priority.
Yes cut it. Along with every other non-essential expense line on the federal budget. Don't really care if its $100 or $100 million.
First of all, I like NPR. But as a country, it's like we are in some zombie trance form of denial and just don't get it. The federal govenrment is completely overextended. There is no money. For every dollar that the Feds distribute anywhere, we are borrowing 40 cents of it.
The fact that we are even having this debate about "the cultural value and benefits of NPR" is telling. It really is like we have lost touch with all reality.
Why should I be forced to pay for unbiased radio? A legitimate forum of political information? You've gotta be ****ing kidding me.
Eat me, drink me, love me;
Laura make much of me
And we have heard a similar outcry from budget every item that has been proposed for cutting. But I guess your statement is accurate in that it won't solve the problem by itself. (not sure where you came up with the "hurts the nation" part)
The money is being borrowed by the Feds to finance a luxury. And we should continue to do so because stopping this particular drain won't "solve the problem"??
Lots of smart people in the discussion. But sometimes I am left scratching my head....