De-fund NPR and PBS

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.

Mellie said:

Do you agree or disagree that we need to stop giving federal $$ to NPR and PBS? I'd like someone who disagree with the defunding, to give some good reasons why the taxpayers should be forced to give money to a radio and TV station.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

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.

Cole said:

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.


.

Click to expand...

Here's the thing, cutting NPR, PBS isn't going to solve the deficit, and when/if we do deal with the programs that are causing the deficit, we won't need to cut NPR, PBS. It's really, a pointless thing, that only hurts the nation.

Your Star said:

Here's the thing, cutting NPR, PBS isn't going to solve the deficit, and when/if we do deal with the programs that are causing the deficit, we won't need to cut NPR, PBS. It's really, a pointless thing, that only hurts the nation.

Click to expand...

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....

.

Cole said:

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....

.

Click to expand...

NPR and PBS provides some of the best news, and educational programing in the country, and it would hurt the nation to defund them. The fact is that, even if you defund everything besides the military, social security, and medicare, we will still have a deficit. We need to cut those programs, this is just politicians pretending to do something about the deficit, nothing more.

Your Star said:

NPR and PBS provides some of the best news, and educational programing in the country, and it would hurt the nation to defund them. The fact is that, even if you defund everything besides the military, social security, and medicare, we will still have a deficit. We need to cut those programs, this is just politicians pretending to do something about the deficit, nothing more.

Click to expand...

I'd be willing to risk hurting the country and defunding NPR.

Ockham said:

I'd be willing to risk hurting the country and defunding NPR.

Click to expand...

Even if you don't like NPR, defunding it won't solve anything. It's nothing more than politicians grandstanding, and pretending to do something, while they let the real problem grow bigger.

Your Star said:

Even if you don't like NPR, defunding it won't solve anything. It's nothing more than politicians grandstanding, and pretending to do something, while they let the real problem grow bigger.

Click to expand...

It has little to do with like or dislike - I don't watch or listen to their shows... I watch my local PBS once in a while but that's it. NPR simply doesn't need the funding and they should compete with the rest of the stations out there for whatever money they won't get from the gov.

Ockham said:

It has little to do with like or dislike - I don't watch or listen to their shows... I watch my local PBS once in a while but that's it. NPR simply doesn't need the funding and they should compete with the rest of the stations out there for whatever money they won't get from the gov.

Click to expand...

I disagree, like others have stated, there is a benefit to having news stations that don't have to please their bosses.

Redress said:

I have listened to NPR some on long drives across country. It has simply put the best in depth news coverage. Newspapers and magazines wish they had as solid of news coverage.

Click to expand...

I remember tuning into NPR while driving through the US. They were discussing healthcare, and the segment focussed in on the Canadian system. I think if more Americans would have tuned in, they would hold a much different opinion on the facets of our system, suchs as our government does not run our healthcare as opposed to just funding it (amongst other interesting tidbits and facts that even educated me about my own system). It was an interesting and informative couple of hours that didn't *GASP* once mention "death panels," and other faulty misconceptions. It's great when a station does not have an agenda. Like Americans, we have our own publicly funded radio (CBC) and if my government decided to scrap it, I would be one of the first on Parliament Hill to protest.

Middleground said:

I remember tuning into PBS while driving through the US. They were discussing healthcare, and the segment focussed in on the Canadian system. I think if more Americans would have tuned in, they would hold a much different opinion on the facets of our system, suchs as our government does not run our healthcare as opposed to just funding it (amongst other interesting tidbits and facts that even educated me about my own system). It was an interesting and informative couple of hours that didn't *GASP* once mention "death panels," and other faulty misconceptions. Like you, we have our own publicly funded radio (CBC) and if my government decided to scrap it, I would be one of the first on Parliament Hill to protest.

Click to expand...

And so would many hockey fans

Your Star said:

And so would many hockey fans

Click to expand...

That goes without saying, eh. ;-)

Middleground said:

That goes without saying, eh. ;-)

Click to expand...

I don't think Don Cherry would like losing his paycheck.

Mellie said:

Do you agree or disagree that we need to stop giving federal $$ to NPR and PBS? I'd like someone who disagree with the defunding, to give some good reasons why the taxpayers should be forced to give money to a radio and TV station.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

As our Forefathers and Founders turn in their graves.....at even the notion of Government Radio and TV......

.....I say cut every bloody cent of funding for NPR and PBS.....yesterday.
.
.
.

Badmutha said:

As our Forefathers and Founders turn in their graves.....at even the notion of Government Radio and TV......

.....I say cut every bloody cent of funding for NPR and PBS.....yesterday.
.
.
.

Click to expand...

I imagine the idea of radio itself would cause them to burst a blood vessel or two.

Mayor Snorkum said:

The Constitution does not authorize the funding of a government propaganda network.

Nor should people who oppose the socialist message of NPR be forced to pay taxes to support it.

NPR should compete for dollars on the same free-market place that Limbaugh, Beck, and John and Ken are competing in. If they can't remain financially solvent then that's proof enough that the majority don't want it, and as Mayor Sokum keeps hearing from the left, the will of the majority is supposed to prevail.

Click to expand...

Why does every Conservative think that everything the government does has to be written in the Constitution? This document gives Congress the authority to write laws and the law that they wrote authorizing public broadcasting is the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. It's the same stupid argument Conservatives used in their attempt to condemn the President's authority to establish the trust fund for BP to pay for lost income and repair damanges caused by the oil spill. "Where in the Constitution does it give Obama the authority to do that," the talking heads kept asking. Well, it's not there. But...

Under one of their enumerated powers, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act which gives the President the aforementioned authority. Everytime I heard that stupid question being asked and heard callers agree with the likes of Rush, Hannity, Levin, Borks and Coulter, I just shook my head and asked, "Surely their 'educated' listeners aren't that stupid? But your repeat of this same foolish question makes me think maybe some of you are.

roughdraft274 said:

I won't just automatically assume you meant this so I want to clarify.

Do you think NPR is the liberal version of Rush Limbaugh?

Click to expand...

No. Limbaugh satisfies a market-based need. NPR doesn't have the guts to compete in the free marketplace of ideas.

Mayor Snorkum said:

No. Limbaugh satisfies a market-based need. NPR doesn't have the guts to compete in the free marketplace of ideas.

Click to expand...

The vast majority of NPR funding is private. Mayor snorkum is merely avariciously spiteful at this fact.

Your Star said:

I disagree, like others have stated, there is a benefit to having news stations that don't have to please their bosses.

Click to expand...

Yeah.....tell Juan Williams.......or any other NPR Liberal or PBS Democrat that dared to say anything negative about the plantation.

Pleasing the DNC boss.....is why they get funding my willfully ignorant friend.
.
.
.
.

SE102 said:

The vast majority of NPR funding is private. Mayor snorkum is merely avariciously spiteful at this fact.

Click to expand...

Well lets make it 100%.......

Crazy idea here.....if you Libtards love it so much....you pay for it out of your pocket....rather than mine.
.
.
.

Badmutha said:

Yeah.....tell Juan Williams.......or any other NPR Liberal or PBS Democrat that dared to say anything negative about the plantation.

Pleasing the DNC boss.....is why they get funding my willfully ignorant friend.
.
.
.
.

Click to expand...

I love a good conspiracy theory, also love the formatting. It's the cherry on top.

Objective Voice said:

Why does every Conservative think that everything the government does has to be written in the Constitution?

Click to expand...

Because that's what the Constitution says?

Because there's no point in having a written Constitution if its not going to be obeyed?

Because deviating from the Constitution is the cause of all the problems this nation has had in the last 100 years?

No.

All of the above, those were rethorical questions.

This document gives Congress the authority to write laws

Click to expand...

Oh! LOOK AT THAT! You forgot to say that the Constitution places limits on the laws Congress is allowed to write, it places limits on the aspects of the country Congress can write laws about, and it makes it perfectly clear that if the Constitution does not specifically grant Congress the authority to do something, Congress does not, in fact, have the authority to do it.

Some of the things the Constitution does not give Congress permission to do is create a national pension scheme, a national health care scheme, a national education scheme, or a national radio corporation.

and the law that they wrote authorizing public broadcasting is the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.

Click to expand...

So? They wrote a law they lacked the authority to enact. That's all there is to that.

It's the same stupid argument Conservatives used in their attempt to condemn the President's authority to establish the trust fund for BP to pay for lost income and repair damanges caused by the oil spill. "Where in the Constitution does it give Obama the authority to do that," the talking heads kept asking. Well, it's not there. But...

Click to expand...

Well, since you yourself just admitted the authority isn't in the Constitution but you don't care, when can we expect you to throw in your support for hereditary monarchy in the US? That's not allowed in the Constitution either, but you just said that doesn't matter.

Under one of their enumerated powers, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act which gives the President the aforementioned authority.

Click to expand...

So, first you say the Constitution does not grant the Congress the power to do something, then you turn around and claim it does.

Can you figure out which position you wish to take? No one else can do that for you.

Everytime I heard that stupid question being asked and heard callers agree with the likes of Rush, Hannity, Levin, Borks and Coulter, I just shook my head and asked, "Sure their 'educated listeners' aren't that stupid? But your repeat of this same foolish question makes me think maybe some of you are.

Click to expand...

Hmmm...it doesn't look like anyone has flagged your post for ad hominem nastiness. But I'm not going to bother, you've already demonsrated your inability to support your position.

samsmart said:

I am pissed because as I was posting I got timed out, and it erased my post.

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.

Click to expand...

You have the freedom to donate as much of your own money to NPR and PBS as you wish. Other people should have their freedom to not donate restored to them. Your donation should not be tax deductible. If not enough people are willing to donate their own money to NPR and NPR becomes a financial failure, that's a demonstration that the will of the people is against that sort of boondoggle.

Nothing could demonstrate the power of true democracy more than the freedom of people to express their desires by spending or witholding funds from a given enterprise.

Nothing can demonstrate the fear the left has towards true democracy than their need to deny people their freedom to express that choice.

Middleground said:

I remember tuning into NPR while driving through the US. They were discussing healthcare, and the segment focussed in on the Canadian system. I think if more Americans would have tuned in, they would hold a much different opinion on the facets of our system, suchs as our government does not run our healthcare as opposed to just funding it (amongst other interesting tidbits and facts that even educated me about my own system).

Click to expand...

So government holds the purse strings......but they "don't run it".......

It was an interesting and informative couple of hours that didn't *GASP* once mention "death panels," and other faulty misconceptions. It's great when a station does not have an agenda. Like Americans, we have our own publicly funded radio (CBC) and if my government decided to scrap it, I would be one of the first on Parliament Hill to protest.

Click to expand...

So a statist.....listening to statist radio......decides everything the state says is 100% true.

The Democrat Party holds the purse strings of PBS and NPR.......and PBS and NPR dont have an agenda?

.......I mean you seriously believe this?
.,.

.
.