De-fund NPR and PBS

StillBallin75 said:

I was talking about a separate but related issue, which is that of NPR's bias. The issue of their funding is another matter, but I voted "disagree" in the poll.

Click to expand...

They can have all the bias they can dish out. As soon as they're cut off from taxpayer funding. Until that time, NPR should be the only radio network subject to the "Fairness Doctrine".

I love PBS, but in the end the funding must go, and look it doesn't matter because they can generate their own revenue.

Badmutha said:

The journey of 14 trillion miles begins with the first step.....saying we shouldnt take the first step because its just a small step...........is why the journey is 14 trillion miles long and growing.
.
.
.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that we shouldn't take the first step. I'm saying the first step shouldn't be us walking in place.

Bigfoot 88 said:

I love PBS, but in the end the funding must go, and look it doesn't matter because they can generate their own revenue.

Click to expand...

OK, I have a serious question. People are saying PBS, NPR paid by taxpaers, it should all just be cut. OK, I get that. Now let's go into another related topic, Cable TV. It is against the law to have ala carte options, you know that? The Cable industry gave lots in donations to get that law passed (BTW, here is one of the real problems, in case anyone wants to quit being distracted by stupid stuff like NPR) and Congress did. That's why we have to pay for programming we don't want. Ever wonder why there's 200+ channels? Think 200+ channels can support themselves? They're subsidized via cable packages because the companies make more when they can get more channels paid for. I don't tend to watch Oxygen, but I got it because it is illegal to not have it. Or rather, it's illegal to offer me the option to not have it.

Additionally, the cable lobby successfully got other laws such as competition laws in place where each company has essentially a list of cities it has. This limits competition. It's why I'm Comradcast. I can do Dish network, but there really is very little competition amongst the cable/internet providers. All this is backed by law, law which was paid for by the lobbiest groups. It's a great deal for them, seriously these lobbiests can spend a few million and get billions in return. What does all this mean? It's essentially State sponsored local monopoly/oligopoly with no choice. We can't really choose the channels, we cannot have a lot of choice in providers. This means increased costs to ourselves and other things such as price gouging and price fixing.

So here we have NPR, piss ant little thing getting funding. Sure we should cut it. But it's not going to do anything, and I even doubt that money would be saved. We'd probably just spend it elsewhere regardless. And then we have other things, the mixing of State and private sector to create a corporate model of goverment/market. Pay enough Congressmen, get any law you want, particualarly that which is benefitial. So shouldn't we also be outraged by our lack of choice and proper competition in the cable/internet arena? I mean, we're going after NPR, and here we have actual law and regulation which prevents US from having proper consumer say in the market place. It's essentially a big ass subsidy to the cable industry because we have to pay higher prices for all the packaging. Why can't you just buy Fox? Or Cartoon Network? Or Comedy Central? When you order cable why can't there be 3-4 providers in your community? I mean besides the actual law which makes all this illegal, this is more a generalized case.

We want to get pissy over NPR, and yes let's cut it; but don't pretend that by doing so you're making an ounce of difference. Because the real problem is improper government action and regulation and THAT is not being addressed by this little NPR deflection.

Guy Incognito said:

I'd support that. It's slash and burn time. The trouble is nobody in Washington is serious about making cuts, so what you call tickytack might be the only cuts we can make.

Click to expand...

No, its not. Our elected officials are not serious about budget cuts, nor is most of the population. If they were, there would have been a serious discussion about the cost of Libya. Cutting NPR only pays for 5 cruise missiles.....

The whole debate over to defund NPR/PBS is just another GOP attempt to misdirect and create issues out of thin air. Why do they not focus on the real problems instead of attacking these programming stations for their "fact-reporting," is that something that offends the GOP?

tlmorg02 said:

The whole debate over to defund NPR/PBS is just another GOP attempt to misdirect and create issues out of thin air. Why do they not focus on the real problems instead of attacking these programming stations for their "fact-reporting," is that something that offends the GOP?

Click to expand...

I agree, I believe the whole thing is deflectionary, that's why I'm surprised that people are being caught up in it. It's NPR/PBS, when cutting it can make a real difference we're going to be sitting pretty. But cutting it now before you prevent the government from misusing that money in other ways, it ain't gonna do nothing. Pissing into the wind. We should see this topic for what it is, deflection, and get on with the important things. As I said, people need to prioritize. If we let ourselves be all ADD and jump around from topic to topic like it's the flavor of the week, we're never going to accomplish anything. It's time to focus people.

upsideguy said:

No, its not. Our elected officials are not serious about budget cuts, nor is most of the population. If they were, there would have been a serious discussion about the cost of Libya. Cutting NPR only pays for 5 cruise missiles.....

Click to expand...

This is a non sequitur. You are making a conclusion that does not follow. NPR might only pay for five cruise missiles, but it still needs to go. We cannot afford it, end of discussion.

The fact that money is being spent elsewhere does not constitute an argument that money should be spent on NPR. That is nonsense.

tlmorg02 said:

The whole debate over to defund NPR/PBS is just another GOP attempt to misdirect and create issues out of thin air. Why do they not focus on the real problems instead of attacking these programming stations for their "fact-reporting," is that something that offends the GOP?

Click to expand...

Who cares why the GOP is doing it? Even if their motive are impure (what else is new?) at least they are right. NPR and PBS are fat that needs to be trimmed. As upsideguy wisely observed, the money spent on NPR is better spent on national defense.

Guy Incognito said:

Who cares why the GOP is doing it? Even if their motive are impure (what else is new?) at least they are right. NPR and PBS are fat that needs to be trimmed. As upsideguy wisely observed, the money spent on NPR is better spent on national defense.

Click to expand...

So you ultimately don't care about spending and deficit, you just want things "spent correctly"? While there is merit to the theory, it does nothing for us in the current state. One must be able to rationally analyze the situation in order to develop an analytical solution to the system. We are in debt, we want that to be addressed; that seems to be the tone (well not your last post). Cutting NPR does what? You can say well we aren't supporting this radio station. OK. But the subsidizes we spend on corporations, giving them tax breaks and allowing them to buy off our Congress is well more expensive than NPR. Cut that? No? Why?

In the end, all you're doing is getting caught up in the deflection and not paying attention to the big issues that desperately need to be addressed. It's just being part of the problem. Cutting NPR will not get the budget under control, it will not get government under control, it will do nothing to improve our lot or make any headway what so ever. It is deflection and nothing more. We cannot afford to be ADD any longer, we have to focus on the problems and address the real issues before it's too late.

Guy Incognito said:

Who cares why the GOP is doing it? Even if their motive are impure (what else is new?) at least they are right. NPR and PBS are fat that needs to be trimmed. As upsideguy wisely observed, the money spent on NPR is better spent on national defense.

Click to expand...

Don't think that was his point.

PW4000 said:

Absolutely! I don't hide or shy away from it either.

Come on - how can you want to pull the plug on that which brought you this: (turn our volume way up)



"I'm going to get there, if you're veeeeeery careful."

Now, you sit here and tell me that after all these years, you still don't have your Conjunction Junction groove fully in gear? This was epic genius on the part of PBS, and from the looks of things in the United States today, more people could have benefited from learning more about Grammar this way.

Pure genius, was PBS when they put this out there. Here, I've got some more for you to reminisce abut. You will absolutely love this one:



We can send half the people on this board back to Conjunction Function and School House Rock, just so they can develop better writing skills! We can't get rid of this - we just can't.

PBS Rocks, and (conjunction function) it always has. That's my CENTRIST view point.

Click to expand...

Funny thing that your most memorable PBS learning experiences, and all of the "Epic Genius" and "Pure Genius" that went into making them, didn't come from PBS at all but from a commerical advertising venture -- sold to and aired on *GASP* broadcast television (ABC) and sponsored by General Foods.

Maybe we should move this to the thread on corporate welfare? Surely if PBS deserves funding for such a product...

Guy Incognito said:

This is a non sequitur. You are making a conclusion that does not follow. NPR might only pay for five cruise missiles, but it still needs to go. We cannot afford it, end of discussion.

The fact that money is being spent elsewhere does not constitute an argument that money should be spent on NPR. That is nonsense.

Click to expand...

If we can't afford NPR, we certainly can't afford playing around in Libya.

Again, the nonsense is somehow thinking the idea of cutting NPR represents a serious attempt by the GOP to balance the budget. If they were serious, there would at least question whether or not we could afford Libya... the fact that their is almost zero question about this affirms that cutting NPR is all politics and nothing about saving money.

Assuming for a moment they are serious about cutting the budget, then the must be incompetent. As per my previous post, I have a problem with starting with trivial matters when there is real work to be done.

upsideguy said:

...as I posted before, if I asked one of my managers to cut $100,000 out of his budget and his first action is to make a fuss of a $12 item, I think I have an incompetant manager. ($12/$100,000 is the same ratio as $7.5M to $61B... or 1/100 of 1%). Anyone that thinks the conservative attack on NPR has anything to do with the budget.... well, they are as gullible as they come. The real issue is all of this is an incredible ruse, and the republicans have no interest in expenditure cutting (most of them think we should be in Libya, which if you believed them weeks ago, would be something we could not afford), they are just up to there usual, pointless games.

Click to expand...

Republicans are not serious about the budget or just incompetent? You decide.

Guy Incognito said:

Who cares why the GOP is doing it? Even if their motive are impure (what else is new?) at least they are right. NPR and PBS are fat that needs to be trimmed. As upsideguy wisely observed, the money spent on NPR is better spent on national defense.

Click to expand...

...nor do I think that was my point. BTW, I thought libertarian were generally against imperialist adventures... therefore would be against our participation in Libya. I realize intelligent people to do not buy doctrine hook, line and sinker... but I am curious.

StillBallin75 said:

Don't think that was his point.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know, but at least I was able to salvage something wothwhile from his argument.

Guy Incognito said:

This is a non sequitur. You are making a conclusion that does not follow. NPR might only pay for five cruise missiles, but it still needs to go. We cannot afford it, end of discussion.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if it's de-funded or not. One of the PBS spokespersons said that only one percent is provided by the Government, the rest by donations.

The Reps who are pushing it most know that too, and that the Senate will never pass it, so it all comes down to another case of dirty politics, and gotcha, not economy.

If the Reps really want to help the economy, they could roll back the huge tax break (71 down to 38 percent) Regan gave the rich back in the 80s.

ricksfolly

tlmorg02 said:

The whole debate over to defund NPR/PBS is just another GOP attempt to misdirect and create issues out of thin air. Why do they not focus on the real problems instead of attacking these programming stations for their "fact-reporting," is that something that offends the GOP?

Click to expand...

So far all the Rep bills take away money, not one progressive bill or realistic problem solving, just repressive ones.

ricksfolly

Ikari said:

So here we have NPR, piss ant little thing getting funding. Sure we should cut it.

Click to expand...

About time you start sounding like a Libertarian.......

The Democrat Party cant even cut a cowboy poetry contest........the "other things" you think should be cut first........will make the liberal whining over cutting DNC TV/Radio sound like a mouse fart.
.
.
.
.

Why can't we just cut public media subsidies and larger parts of the budget as well, and just get over it? I don't care if the amount is small or the GOP uses it as a deflection from making meaningful cuts. The sooner we take away the subsidies, the sooner they loose another bogeyman to hide behind, instead of tackling the core reasons behind the deficit. Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good.

I think Ikari's point is that the GOP uses NPR/PBS as a distraction to avoid tackling entitlements and defense spending. I agree with this, but if I were a congressman presented with a bill to cut funding, I would support it. I think Ikari would too, but we would both attack Congress for not making more meaningful cuts.

Badmutha said:

About time you start sounding like a Libertarian.......

The Democrat Party cant even cut a cowboy poetry contest........the "other things" you think should be cut first........will make the liberal whining over cutting DNC TV/Radio sound like a mouse fart.
.
.
.
.

Click to expand...

Why don't you try to actually contribute something other than idiotic statements based on what you think other people should say?

DrunkenAsparagus said:

Why can't we just cut public media subsidies and larger parts of the budget as well, and just get over it? I don't care if the amount is small or the GOP uses it as a deflection from making meaningful cuts. The sooner we take away the subsidies, the sooner they loose another bogeyman to hide behind, instead of tackling the core reasons behind the deficit. Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good.

I think Ikari's point is that the GOP uses NPR/PBS as a distraction to avoid tackling entitlements and defense spending. I agree with this, but if I were a congressman presented with a bill to cut funding, I would support it. I think Ikari would too, but we would both attack Congress for not making more meaningful cuts.

Click to expand...

Exactly, I don't see this as something worth our time to get bogged down in. Cutting it is fine, so long as we're saving the money (we won't). But there are larger issues at stake here and cutting NPR in reality does nothing to our overall situation. We're going to get distracted talking about NPR, meanwhile we pissed through nearly 40 years of NPR funding blowing up little pieces of Libya. Why aren't people bitching there? Cutting NPR just won't do us any good and there's no point in wasting time with the topic. Throw it into the massive spending cut bill, sure; but make sure you get the things which can actually make a difference. Cut all subsidies, not just NPR/PBS, cut all tax give aways, cut defense spending, etc. If we aren't going to look at the bigger issues, what point is it in getting bogged down in the fine details? It's like being flat broke and saying "Well I can't afford that 10 cent piece of bubble gum" and then turn around and drop 2 grand on a new TV. Yay on saving the 10 cents, but you're still ****ed.

Guy Incognito said:

Lose NASA, but keep Nat'l Parks Service and OSHA, they serve a purpose.

Click to expand...

That was my point. Everybody has some programs they like, would want to see continued, and others would rather cut them.

I agree with you on the parks. To me, cutting money to the National Parks would be short sighted and irresponsible. The relevant lands should be protected permanently. We already have enough real estate we can destroy.

Mayor Snorkum said:

No.

Every dime helps.

And the ideological issues are the same regardless of the dollar amount involved, and the Left MUST LOSE this ideological battle, one budget line at a time if that's what's necessary, if the United States is going to gain fiscal solvency and constitutionality.

As for picking battles, the Battle of the Greedy Leftist RAdio Barons is incredibly important. The Left has NO ammunition here, no valid justification for the continued existence of taxpayer funding for NPR when the vast bulk of the nation doesn't listen to it, when it caters to the wealthy, when the taxpayers are either unemployed or facing doubled gasoline prices. The people want this debate ended, along with NPR, so the Congress can focus on other issues, such as drilling on the US Continental Shelves, wondering why the hell we've got three wars on the stove now, and if President Obama's golf score is improving what with all the practice he's getting on the taxpayer dollar.

Finally, Mayor Snorkum could list 100 programs with budgets of a size with NPR's that can be axed with only special interest groups to whine about their loss. When Obama and the Democrats can't find but 4 gigabucks to cut out of a 4 terabuck budget, they need all the help real Americans can give them in pointing out what's not necessary, what's not wanted, and most importantly of all, what's not Constitutional and hence illegal in the US budget.

Click to expand...

The bolded is what we should be hell bent on cutting. If you want to cut NPR, fine, but lets stop spending hundreds of billions on those goddamned wars.

Yes, let's defund two of the best educational tools available today the US. We're already falling behind the rest of the world, why not just screw ourselves over completely.

whysoserious said:

Yes, let's defund two of the best educational tools available today the US. We're already falling behind the rest of the world, why not just screw ourselves over completely.

Click to expand...

There is a serious movement to dumb down students and revise history in some areas of the country. Several states have tried to change history books and argue the science of evolution. Kids here wouldn't have a chance competing against students in many other countries, and it may get worse. We should be very embarrassed.

whysoserious said:

Yes, let's defund two of the best educational tools available today the US. We're already falling behind the rest of the world, why not just screw ourselves over completely.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's the "best", but PBS is the only station that shows Nova programs anymore. **** you Discover Channel!