• 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
Reasonable points. But from my perspective they are missing the bigger picture of the standoff we are in regarding our ongoing federal spending habits/disaster.

There are those defending spending on the smaller non-life impacting luxury items like PBS/NPR. Saying it is insignificant to the to the bigger impact of tackling the entitlements. (which certainly is mathematically accurate)

But as soon as proposals for cuts to the Social Security and Medicare entitlements enter the equation, we can rest assured that there will be screams about federal funding to PBS/NPR and any other federal programs that are much lower priorities.

Believe most agree that Federal spending is out of control and unsustainable. This isn't about love/hate of public broadcasting. It is about first establishing priorities and then working our way down through all spending.

There are a lot of federal expenditures that are not a priority. Funding PBS is not high on the priority list.


.
Well, I've already made it very clear elsewhere that it is my belief that if we are having budget problems (which we are), then we need to look at where our budget is completely 'out of whack'. When you look at our budget, the single thing that stands out as being completely different than the rest of the entire planet of nations is our military spending. We used to be able to afford this. When we could, I was in complete support of doing so, and I believe it has had, overall, a beneficial effect. It is less necessary, now, and the situation is more impossible.

The rest of the free world is going to have to accept more responsibility for it's own well being, and they should. One effect that our strength has had is that it has subsidized many other prosperous nation's budgets. They will have to come up with the money, now, and the blood.

Significant Cutting anywhere else will send us into a slow domestic decline that will ultimately force military cuts in any event. This is because we will be less prosperous, and thereby even less able to afford our bloated military.

So, when you say that those opposed to you are not willing to make tough choices, perhaps that is true. But I am. I am sure that these are not the cuts that you would make. I also imagine that you believe that such cuts will bring about the end of the world, but I'll let you speak for yourself. Finally, if the idea of cutting the military budget gains traction, I would imagine that we will be in for a very bitter fight. One that makes the last 20 years look like a walk in the park.

So, it is about priorities. I believe that public broadcasting is a priority, but more significantly, I believe that other larger domestic spending items are also a priority. I do concede that many of my fellow liberals, and many centrists, have not yet faced truly setting their priorities. They will have to do so soon.
 
There's this thing called the "Internet". Perhaps you've heard of it?

There's Netflix. They seem to have some kind of distribution network to deliver opera to people who like that sort of thing, anywhere they live.

That's just two possibilities that don't require the taxpayer getting fleeced.

A final possibility is that they could do what I did, long ago, I admit, and read the damn thing in French but USING THIER OWN DAMN MONEY TO BUY THE BOOK. That might require them to marry a Parisian to help with the hard parts, but the best things in life are not easy, nor free.

Seeing it on PBS is the only way it is accessible to everyone with a TV and basic cable. There was actually much more to this than the show. It was a 25th anniversary celebration that included performance by many of the people who originated the role. I suppose you could also donate to PBS and get the DVD. Oh, and this Les Miserable has spectacular music, you can't get that from reading the book. The point I was making was not about this specific program but about the huge worth of PBS programming in general.
 
No. Unless one is confused. Opinions are conclusions drawn from fact. Two facts were presented, one conclusion.

.

Just because you think something is true doesn't make it fact. - FACT
 
Who gets to decide if they are doing the bidding of the taxpayers? How do you make that decision?
The taxpayer makes that decision after all we pay the bills, if this isn't satisfactory then the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay. Make it a option on our payroll taxes whether you wish to fund NPR or not, but forcing the taxpayer to pay is unconstitutional.
 
Here is the thing though. There is a potential for bias in all aspects of the government. Every gov agency has a website, many publish research papers, some advertise on TV or at sporting events. Defunding it just because there is a potential of funding something that will present a bias/slant, or go against some viewers beliefs is not really valid nor practical in my eyes.

Government websites and reports are meant to show a single opinion. News media is different, because people are meant to go to it for one opinion. Reporters are meant to provide us with a balanced coverage of events as they can. We trust them to give us the facts, but their take on things often does not line up with our view. I do not want to be forced to support NPR with my tax dollars any more than you want to support Fox News with your's.
 
The taxpayer makes that decision after all we pay the bills, if this isn't satisfactory then the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay. Make it a option on our payroll taxes whether you wish to fund NPR or not, but forcing the taxpayer to pay is unconstitutional.

And we can make it an option whether we fund roads, and police, and wars...

Sounds like a wonderful idea. Bet it will work well!
 
And we can make it an option whether we fund roads, and police, and wars...

Sounds like a wonderful idea. Bet it will work well!
Yes, because public broadcasting is right up there in importance with roads, police and war. :roll:
 
Yes, because public broadcasting is right up there in importance with roads, police and war. :roll:

That is not what he said. How would you decide what is important or not? Sooner or later, it all comes down to opinion, and if we let people not pay taxes on the stuff they don't like, the consequences would be severe.
 
That is not what he said. How would you decide what is important or not? Sooner or later, it all comes down to opinion, and if we let people not pay taxes on the stuff they don't like, the consequences would be severe.
You decide what's important by staying within the boundaries of the constitution and it's 18 enumerated powers, not the 20,000 plus our government currently tries to exercise. This country is broke and NPR is one of the many thousand reasons why, plus I don't care to hear their rambling opinionated B/S on my dime.
 
That is not what he said. How would you decide what is important or not?
I know it gets to be a tough call in some areas. It just seems, though, that funding TV/radio is something we could all agree is pretty low on the list of priorities.

Sooner or later, it all comes down to opinion, and if we let people not pay taxes on the stuff they don't like, the consequences would be severe.
Ok, I agree with this. It would also be entirely unworkable.
 
Well, I've already made it very clear elsewhere that it is my belief that if we are having budget problems (which we are), then we need to look at where our budget is completely 'out of whack'. When you look at our budget, the single thing that stands out as being completely different than the rest of the entire planet of nations is our military spending. We used to be able to afford this. When we could, I was in complete support of doing so, and I believe it has had, overall, a beneficial effect. It is less necessary, now, and the situation is more impossible.

The rest of the free world is going to have to accept more responsibility for it's own well being, and they should. One effect that our strength has had is that it has subsidized many other prosperous nation's budgets. They will have to come up with the money, now, and the blood.

Significant Cutting anywhere else will send us into a slow domestic decline that will ultimately force military cuts in any event. This is because we will be less prosperous, and thereby even less able to afford our bloated military.

So, when you say that those opposed to you are not willing to make tough choices, perhaps that is true. But I am. I am sure that these are not the cuts that you would make. I also imagine that you believe that such cuts will bring about the end of the world, but I'll let you speak for yourself. Finally, if the idea of cutting the military budget gains traction, I would imagine that we will be in for a very bitter fight. One that makes the last 20 years look like a walk in the park.

So, it is about priorities. I believe that public broadcasting is a priority, but more significantly, I believe that other larger domestic spending items are also a priority. I do concede that many of my fellow liberals, and many centrists, have not yet faced truly setting their priorities. They will have to do so soon.

Have no issue with trimming back military spending. No doubt significant reductions can be found there. But we could reduce money to the military by 25% and the federal budget would still be grossly overextended.

You agree that there is a need to make tough choices, but then you state "significant cutting" anywhere but the military is unacceptable. Problem is, that math doesn't work. Entitlement programs have to part of the formula in order to rein in federal spending.

As to priorities, we have become somewhat of spoiled society in our expectations. Public broadcasting isn't even on my list as a priority. And it is hard to grasp that anyone else has it high on theirs.


.
 
I know it gets to be a tough call in some areas. It just seems, though, that funding TV/radio is something we could all agree is pretty low on the list of priorities.

The lowest of the low priorities. Which is why removing said funding should be a no brainer from a practical view. The only reason we're continuing to have these discussions is I think, because of Democrats ideology - I just don't see the benefit, and if there is a benefit to the taxpayer, the scale of benefit to continue such funding. If taxpayers want to continue to support NPR they can by donating directly, which I see as perfectly fine.
 
It is a low priority, and I say that as an NPR listener (I also watch Bill O'Reilly sometimes before anybody starts calling me a Marxist). My issue is that this didn't warrant an "emergency session."

So far Republicans have gone after Unions and NPR. Pretty easy targets. I can't wait to see what happens when it gets down to the heavy lifting, i.e., when it comes to either cutting Defense or raising taxes. My guess is that they'll lose their resolve pretty quickly at that point.
 
The point should not be cost. The point is that we are funding a program that has biases against our belief system. I do not care if it's divine revelation compared to Glenn Beck. People are reporting, and they bound to be biased. Many in this thread are Liberal, so the bias will stick out less to them, but as an NPR listener, I can tell you that a slant does sometimes show itself.

My argument is that NPR and PBS provide a variety of valuable programming that have nothing to do with political bias whatsoever, and that programming is what make NPR and PBS valuable public investments.
 
That point is incorrect.

However, since NPR IS biased, and since the Constitution does not permit the establishment of a national media corporation, then NPR should be taken off the corporate welfare list.

I'll take this argument against NPR and public education in general a lot more seriously when it is used successfully to deny the Feds the right to trample all over my civil liberties.
 
My argument is that NPR and PBS provide a variety of valuable programming that have nothing to do with political bias whatsoever, and that programming is what make NPR and PBS valuable public investments.

You would have to consider a cost vs benefit then. How many radio stations do we have now? How many TV stations do we have now? How accessible are they to the general public? I think you will find that there are hundreds of thousands that the general public has little trouble getting. NPR and PBS do not make the market for radio and TV more efficient. A basic cost v benefit would tell you that we should not fund them.
 
My argument is that NPR and PBS provide a variety of valuable programming that have nothing to do with political bias whatsoever, and that programming is what make NPR and PBS valuable public investments.

But the news programs are still major parts of the outlets. The amount of money is not important. The fact that these programs still receive funding despite bias, is what I find disagreeable.
 
I never listen to NPR, so I don't really have an opinion. I don't really see any inherent societal benefit of the government funding a radio station though. I'm not going to be that upset if the government stops funding NPR.

PBS is great. It's widely considered one of the most reliable sources of news, and it has great educational programming that truly DOES provide a benefit to society. I'm not sure how competitive that would be in a free market, so I don't have any problem at all with government funding PBS.

But the GOP wants funding cut for CPB, which encompasses NPR and PBS. If CPB funding gets cut (and it won't as long as Dems in the Senate hold onto their balls amd standup to te GOP), then both NPR and PBS lose the little gov't support they now receive.
 
You would have to consider a cost vs benefit then. How many radio stations do we have now? How many TV stations do we have now? How accessible are they to the general public? I think you will find that there are hundreds of thousands that the general public has little trouble getting. NPR and PBS do not make the market for radio and TV more efficient. A basic cost v benefit would tell you that we should not fund them.

You're counting outlets and accessibility. I'm counting content.
 
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.

First, NPR is gov't propaganda and it's not socialist media. What a ridiculous assertion. Do you even know what socialist means? Second, lots of things aren't authorized by the Constitution - like the DOD, Dept of Ed, FDA, EPA. Should they be abolished because they're not in the Constitution?

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.

Try telling that to the majority of Americans who support having a public option or the majority who support the DREAM Act.
 
But the news programs are still major parts of the outlets.

I hear top-of-the-hour news updates on my local NPR affiliate, and when I checked the schedule for my local PBS affiliate I saw all of 3 hours of news programming schedule for today. Across 4 digital channels. Most of the content offered is children's programming (12 hours a day), DIY programming, documentaries and classical stuff.

I have no idea where you're getting your information, but as someone who actually consumes what is being discussed I question it.

The amount of money is not important. The fact that these programs still receive funding despite bias, is what I find disagreeable.

You can find bias in each and every human endeavor. That doesn't mean we shouldn't fund them.
 
It is a low priority, and I say that as an NPR listener (I also watch Bill O'Reilly sometimes before anybody starts calling me a Marxist). My issue is that this didn't warrant an "emergency session."

So far Republicans have gone after Unions and NPR. Pretty easy targets. I can't wait to see what happens when it gets down to the heavy lifting, i.e., when it comes to either cutting Defense or raising taxes. My guess is that they'll lose their resolve pretty quickly at that point.

Well considering Democrats have already raised objections to cutting Cowboy Poetry Contests.........

............I think its safe to say there are no easy targets in The Democrat Budget to Bankruptcy.
.
.
.
 
First, NPR is gov't propaganda and it's not socialist media. What a ridiculous assertion. Do you even know what socialist means? Second, lots of things aren't authorized by the Constitution - like the DOD, Dept of Ed, FDA, EPA. Should they be abolished because they're not in the Constitution?

....two words.....HELL YES!

Try telling that to the majority of Americans who support having a public option or the majority who support the DREAM Act.

I believe those majority of Americans spoke on Nov. 2,2010--The Largest Political Ass Whooping in History

We told Democrats to shove ObamaCare and Amnesty where the sun dont shine...........and the remaining Democrats in Washington decided to cover their ears rather than listen to We The People.
.
.
.
 
Back
Top Bottom