• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

De-fund NPR and PBS

Defund NPR and PBS!

  • I agree!

    Votes: 41 47.7%
  • I disagree.

    Votes: 45 52.3%

  • Total voters
    86
This point has been expressed many times in this thread.

The reasons given are silly. If we defund PBS, they'll survive. And even if they don't (slim chance), there are many other TV stations with educational programming and they don't take money from the government. Why not slice away the unnecessary spending?
 
The reasons given are silly. If we defund PBS, they'll survive. And even if they don't (slim chance), there are many other TV stations with educational programming and they don't take money from the government. Why not slice away the unnecessary spending?

They aren't silly, they provide great educational programs for kids, how many times did you watch a documentary in school, and it was made by PBS? Also the reason you want to cut them is the deficit right? Well that has already been addressed as well, and defunding them won't solve the deficit.
 
They aren't silly, they provide great educational programs for kids, how many times did you watch a documentary in school, and it was made by PBS? Also the reason you want to cut them is the deficit right? Well that has already been addressed as well, and defunding them won't solve the deficit.

There are other companies that create education videos for kids, Star. And PBS would survive not having the small percentage they get from the government. Who has said it would solve the deficit? Cutting uneccessary spending is what needs to happen. Why not start here and get the ball rolling?
 
The Constitution does not authorize the funding of a government propaganda network..

You are correct. Rest assured that we do not have a government propaganda network. We do have a private propaganda network, but its privately funded principally by an Australian.

TNor should people who oppose the socialist message of NPR be forced to pay taxes to support it.

Yep, if it doesn't have a conservative bias then it must be socialist.

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.

Guess what? It already does. NPR gets a very small percentage of its operating dollars from government funding. Cut the funding and NPR barely hiccups.

Guess what else? The republican obsession with NPR is really a testament to how clueless they are about fixing the budget. Their is a $1.5T shortfall and they chose to spend considerable time on the merits of a $7.5M. So that you understand the magnitude of $1M to $1T, consider that you live for 1,000,000 seconds every 11 days, but it takes 33,000 YEARS to have lived for 1,000,000,000,000 seconds.
 
Last edited:
Guess what? It already does. NPR gets a very small percentage of its operating dollars from government funding. Cut the funding and NPR barely hiccups.

So what's the problem with defudning them?
 
There are other companies that create education videos for kids, Star. And PBS would survive not having the small percentage they get from the government. Who has said it would solve the deficit? Cutting uneccessary spending is what needs to happen. Why not start here and get the ball rolling?

It's just politicians grandstanding, pretending to solve the deficit, when they are doing nothing about it, and are letting the real problem grow bigger.

PBS deserves the funding IMO, it's a worthwhile venture.
 
Another problem with public funding is that it allows the government to influence the reporting. The grants are paid forward in an attempt to avoid this, but in a congress with such a high reelection rate, legislators could still threaten future funding over bias.
 
The reasons given are silly. If we defund PBS, they'll survive. And even if they don't (slim chance), there are many other TV stations with educational programming and they don't take money from the government. Why not slice away the unnecessary spending?

If you think they are silly, then you don't understand them(see, others can be condescending as hell with those they disagree with too).
 
Guess what? It already does. NPR gets a very small percentage of its operating dollars from government funding. Cut the funding and NPR barely hiccups.

So why all the Democrat outrage over cutting DNC GOVERNMENT RADIO?

Guess what else? The republican obsession with NPR is really a testament to how clueless they are about fixing the budget. Their is a $1.5T shortfall and they chose to spend considerable time on the merits of a $7.5M. So that you understand the magnitude of $1M to $1T, consider that you live for 1,000,000 seconds every 11 days, but it takes 33,000 YEARS to have lived for 1,000,000,000,000 seconds.

Democrats wont even cut funding for a cowboy poetry contest........

The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.......

......thanks to this Liberal attitude of "Its only (insert any number) Million dollars, we cant cut that.......the journey is now 14 trillion miles.
.
.
.
 
You know what? I think I mis-voted. I might get this wrong, but if I remember correctly, as CC could demonstrate (I think I remember he had to talk about polls a lot, right?) , I voted in the affirmative for both. Well, I should have only agreed to NPR.
 
The reasons given are silly. If we defund PBS, they'll survive. And even if they don't (slim chance), there are many other TV stations with educational programming and they don't take money from the government. Why not slice away the unnecessary spending?

Theres no way in your mind to measure the value of something other than monetarily? Cutting it's spending is squat, a spec in the eye of the budget. Why are we wasting time talking about 7 million. It's a waste of my time to even discuss it myself. If you want a publicly funded commercial free liberal network with millions of viewers, defund it. Theres no way they'll swing right when detached from the government. It's very neutral at the moment and it's being sacrificed in a political ploy.
 
Last edited:
The TELEVISION is not your teacher........it is not your child's teacher......neither is the toaster......or the radio.....or any other appliance in your home.

People can learn much about language via the television. That was the whole point of Sesame Street.

People can learn much about science by having things demonstrated to them via television. That was the whole point of Mr. Wizard.

People can learn much about other parts of the world by watching recordings of what happens in those places. That was the whole point of the National Geographic tv specials.

Television is a tool and it can enlightened and educate others. Is it the only tool to do so? No. But it can help.
 
Another issue is bias. Yes, public media funding makes up a tiny portion of the budget, and getting rid of it would not seriously affect the deficit. However, many people take issue with giving any of their money to a media organization that they do not want to support. Many people here have remarked on NPR and PBS's impartiality. While I agree that these outlets do an excellent job of showing both sides, saying that the stations are impartial sounds like the hard right-wingers insisting until their faces turn blue that Fox News is the most unbiased source. I know that each one of you, would not want to give your tax dollars to Fox News, even if it had a small impact on your wallet. Yes, I know you'll say that Fox News is way more biased. I won't disagree, but both have their biases. No matter how little that bias shows itself, it will create opponents who are ideologically opposed to the reporter's analyses.

You know, here's my stance on that.

You're right in that I wouldn't want tax dollars to go to Fox News. But I wouldn't want my tax dollars to go to Air America either.

The reason for that is because all they do is political opinion. Which is not the same as political discussion nor the same as political news.

Now if there was a conservative news show that provided discussion or news without the opinion part, I would probably check it out or support it's ability to get tax dollars. But this is because I don't believe in having few sources of information and news.

The problem with Fox News and also MSNBC is that they give opinionated slants to all they do. These slants are obvious to the other side, which is why the other side never tunes in to the opposing channel.

But why does Fox News and MSNBC give opinionated slants in the first place? Because the executives there know it's the best way to maintain an audience and so can command high ratings which they can then demand high revenues for advertisements.

So, yeah, actually I wouldn't mind tax dollars going to shows that give conservative slants on news, discussions, and education - as long as it took out the opinions.
 
First off, I fully recognize that funding for the NPR and PBS is a drop in the bucket when talking about the deficit and federal budget. And most of the politicians focusing on this are doing so because public broadcasting is an easy target to grandstand and win support from their supporters on. It reminds me of foreign aid. Conservatives love to harp on foreign aid, when it's a tiny fraction of the budget. It's not surprising becasue unfortunately, grandstanding is what politicians do best.

That said, I do support cutting funding. Yes it's a miniscule amount, but I'll take any cuts to expendable programs over the status quo. There are a lot of things I'd cut ahead of public broadcasting if I were in charge, but it is expendable and non-essential so I'll happily support any bill that moves to cut it.

But mostly, I don't think cutting it or keeping it is worth the effort and attention it's recieved.
 
First off, I fully recognize that funding for the NPR and PBS is a drop in the bucket when talking about the deficit and federal budget. And most of the politicians focusing on this are doing so because public broadcasting is an easy target to grandstand and win support from their supporters on. It reminds me of foreign aid. Conservatives love to harp on foreign aid, when it's a tiny fraction of the budget. It's not surprising becasue unfortunately, grandstanding is what politicians do best.

20-25 billion a year is not a minuscule amount of money. That is 20-25 billion that could have been spent somewhere in the US or not taken from the tax payers in the first place.


How much money does the U.S. give in foreign aid, what is the total amount? - Yahoo! Answers

Pop Quiz: How much does the U.S. give in foreign aid? | Amplify
 
Twenty or thirty billion sounds huge until you realize we're talking about a 3 TRILLION dollar budget. Foreign aid is 1% of the budget. One percent is miniscule. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for cutting foreign aid to the bone, but it's not going to come anywhere close to solving our deficit problem. It's an easy target (like public broadcasting) that politicians can grandstand on so they don't have to address the real problem (which would mean cutting entitlements and military spending which make up the bulk of our budget).

http://foreignassistance.gov/AboutTheData.aspx
 
Twenty or thirty billion sounds huge until you realize we're talking about a 3 TRILLION dollar budget. Foreign aid is 1% of the budget. One percent is miniscule. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for cutting foreign aid to the bone, but it's not going to come anywhere close to solving our deficit problem. It's an easy target (like public broadcasting) that politicians can grandstand on so they don't have to address the real problem (which would mean cutting entitlements and military spending which make up the bulk of our budget).

ForeignAssistance.gov

It is still 20-25 billion a year.Its still a **** load of money. Going oh its a minuscule amount is probably one of the things that got our country into debt.
 
People can learn much about language via the television. That was the whole point of Sesame Street.

People can learn much about science by having things demonstrated to them via television. That was the whole point of Mr. Wizard.

People can learn much about other parts of the world by watching recordings of what happens in those places. That was the whole point of the National Geographic tv specials.

Television is a tool and it can enlightened and educate others. Is it the only tool to do so? No. But it can help.

Actually "the children" used to learn all that in school.......

......before a bunch of liberal union slobs took over. Anyways if you support PBS so much....start using your wallet.....mine needs a break.
.
.
.
 
It's just politicians grandstanding, pretending to solve the deficit, when they are doing nothing about it, and are letting the real problem grow bigger.

PBS deserves the funding IMO, it's a worthwhile venture.

You won't even defund NPR to save money, but you'll probably defund defense all day long and nothing else.
 
It is still 20-25 billion a year.Its still a **** load of money. Going oh its a minuscule amount is probably one of the things that got our country into debt.

Do you read my entire posts? I'm all for cutting non-essential spending like foreign aid and public broadcasting, but I also recognize it won't solve the problem. It's hardly even a first step towards solving the problem. Politicians grandstand on these issues not because they are interested in providing real solutions to the problem, but because they know their political base will eat it up and they can use in next year's campaign ads.

Can you not agree that the time we waste arguing over small potato items like NPR or foreign aid would be much better spent addressing the far more pressing issues like entitlements and defense spending? To give you an idea of just how impossible it is to solve our budget deficit without addressing entitlements and defense, let me link an article.

A detailed look at the Rand Paul spending bill | David Freddoso | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

Rand Paul proposed 500 billion in cuts to non-discretionary spending. Deep meaningful cuts. Radical cuts. I support most of his proposals, but even if the his entire proposal was passed, it would only reduce the deficit by a third. This talk about cutting the NPR or foreign aid or whatever other tiny little program that some politician feels he can target because it will play well in the heartland is a smokescreen. A distraction from a far bigger problem.

Cut the NPR! Cut foreign aid! But we still have to deal with the proverbial elephant in the room if you truly want a balanced budget.
 
The problem is, then it would turn into something like Fox or MSNBC, useless partisan bulls**t. Right now, it maintains a decent amount of objectivity, a load more than the other big "news" agencies put together.

You must be referring to the left-wing, pro-AGW Hoax bias of NatGeo and the Discovery Channel suite of stations?

What, anyway, and be precise, is a "right wing" bias on a science documentary? Admission that AGW was a hoax, not reality? Well, since that didn't happen, what, exactly, are you worried about?

Perhaps you can explain the right wing bias in the show "How It's Made"? Perhaps it's anti-union because it focuses on the player piano aspects of manufacturing, not the piano players?
 
Actually "the children" used to learn all that in school.......

......before a bunch of liberal union slobs took over. Anyways if you support PBS so much....start using your wallet.....mine needs a break.

I would if I had less tax money going to the military-industrial-congressional complex and the war on drugs.
 
Then why can't I have my taxpayer's dollars go to NPR instead of to the congressional-military-industrial complex?

Because tax dollars are collected from EVERYONE, and they're collected at gun point. People who do not wish to have their money wasted on an illegal uncosntitutional government propaganda network are denied their freedom to decline association by the fact that the payment is extracted via taxation, not solicitation.

Why can't you write your own check? That way the Americans won't be imposed upon by an intrusive government bent on destroying their liberty.
 
I don't care about PBS or NPR, other American stations have enough money to run themselves.

But here in Canada, the CBC is a necessity. If there was no CBC, we'd be quickly over flown with American content and our culture would be completely assimilated in a matters of years.

So in such a rich country like yours that holds most of the worlds good TV and Radio producers, go ahead, scrap the federal stations. But Canada and other countries need them.


This isn't about Canada. What you people do is your business.
 
Back
Top Bottom