• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Defund NPR, PBS?

applecorped said:
They hate paying for it.
Click to expand...

applecorped said:
So do I. What does that have to do with it? Two wrongs make a right? BTW, I'm for PBS if you hadn't noticed in the OP.
Click to expand...
I was referring to the "They" who hate paying for it.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but complaints about tax payer dollars going to things they don't support rings a bit hollow with this giant, pointless, and incredibly expensive elephant in the room.

My point is that democracy doesn't work on consensus. Not everyone is going to agree on all policies or expenditures. I find the whining about PBS/NPR petty.
 
Cobalt:

You know, the occasional sigh or eye roll or yawn after a particular arguer is repetitive, or argument is used ad nauseum is reasoable. Your plethora of usage in the post atop the page, however, wreaks of juvienile handwaving, or perhaps outright denial. Is it too much to ask you to address the arguments with a little more intelligence, or are those days over for you?

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
Cobalt:

You know, the occasional sigh or eye roll or yawn after a particular arguer is repetitive, or argument is used ad nauseum is reasoable. Your plethora of usage in the post atop the page, however, wreaks of juvienile handwaving, or perhaps outright denial. Is it too much to ask you to address the arguments with a little more intelligence, or are those days over for you?

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Once there's an actual argument worth talking about, instead of "baww fox is bad" talking points, sure, why not.

Did you mean "reeks?" Are we finished practicing now?
 
I want to be a paid talking head. Everything I say is protected by the 1st amendment's freedom of speech so they can never fire me!
 
Cobalt said:
Once there's an actual argument worth talking about, instead of "baww fox is bad" talking points, sure, why not.

Did you mean "reeks?" Are we finished practicing now?
Click to expand...

Probably...not a word i use too much. Practicing what?

TAM:)
 
Cobalt said:
Oh, is this helpful for the discussion, TAM?
Just askin'.
Click to expand...

No, not really, but yours was so repetitive...overkill. If it makes you feel better, then here...

Bit pattern, please try to contribute more to the conversation.

TAM:)
 
daenku32 said:
I want to be a paid talking head. Everything I say is protected by the 1st amendment's freedom of speech so they can never fire me!
Click to expand...

Unless you say something the conservatives don't like, then it's ok to fire you.
 
T.A.M. said:
No, not really, but yours was so repetitive...overkill. If it makes you feel better, then here...

Bit pattern, please try to contribute more to the conversation.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Well....

And my feelings aren't affected by happenings on this forum. Not **** like that, anyway.
 
Upchurch said:
I was referring to the "They" who hate paying for it.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but complaints about tax payer dollars going to things they don't support rings a bit hollow with this giant, pointless, and incredibly expensive elephant in the room.

My point is that democracy doesn't work on consensus. Not everyone is going to agree on all policies or expenditures. I find the whining about PBS/NPR petty.
Click to expand...


I'm not part of the THEY I referred to. It is petty but I do see the point being made by those who do not watch PBS or listen to NPR. I watch PBS so I personally don't mind my tax dollars going to it. I don't send in donations as my viewing is limited to Antiques Roadshow mostly. If Glenn Beck was on PBS nightly I'm sure more people here would object to their tax dollars going to fund it.
 
applecorped said:
I'm not part of the THEY I referred to.
Click to expand...
That's fine. I didn't mean to imply that you were.

applecorped said:
If Glenn Beck was on PBS nightly I'm sure more people here would object to their tax dollars going to fund it.
Click to expand...
Maybe so, maybe not. Personally, I would probably try to convince PBS to remove Beck rather than to defund all of PBS.
 
applecorped said:
I'm not part of the THEY I referred to. It is petty but I do see the point being made by those who do not watch PBS or listen to NPR. I watch PBS so I personally don't mind my tax dollars going to it. I don't send in donations as my viewing is limited to Antiques Roadshow mostly. If Glenn Beck was on PBS nightly I'm sure more people here would object to their tax dollars going to fund it.
Click to expand...

I would agree that if PBS was swung so one way politically and become so pathetic in terms of quality, as to show Beck, that I wouldn't mind seeing it go under.

TAM:)
 
applecorped said:
I'm not part of the THEY I referred to. It is petty but I do see the point being made by those who do not watch PBS or listen to NPR. I watch PBS so I personally don't mind my tax dollars going to it. I don't send in donations as my viewing is limited to Antiques Roadshow mostly. If Glenn Beck was on PBS nightly I'm sure more people here would object to their tax dollars going to fund it.
Click to expand...


If the Fed took in about $1.4 trillion of income tax (individual and corporate) last year, and NPR received about $2.5 million of that through grants from the CPB, then how much of a contribution to NPR would someone be making through the Fed income taxes (25% marginal rate) on $50,000 of income?

Just ballparking the gross, I come up with approximately $0.02

For one year.

Anyone who thinks they can't get two cents a year worth of useful information or entertainment out of NPR isn't trying very hard. Even if they don't I'd be puzzled why they would begrudge it to someone else.

I agree with you about "petty".
 
quadraginta said:
Nah.

I think they should go all the way. We could put a stop to the endless litany of politicians complaining about how outrageous it is that people are being forced to give their tax dollars for things they don't approve of.

Hard and fast restrictions, with both general categories and some blank spaces for more specific inclusions and exclusions that may not be detailed.

If Congress runs out of money in a certain pot then they have to go back to their various constituencies and explain to them why spending more money on that would be a good idea.

It would bring a whole new meaning to the idea of "accountability".
Click to expand...

I can think of how that may screw things up. What if everyone decides to not allocate any money to the CDC or NIH thinking other people will take up the slack while the rest of the country decides that subsidizing American Idol to make it commercial free is now the most important thing ever?

Or maybe they think things like "volcano monitoring" or "earthquake preparedness" are wastes of money?
 
Travis said:
I can think of how that may screw things up. What if everyone decides to not allocate any money to the CDC or NIH thinking other people will take up the slack while the rest of the country decides that subsidizing American Idol to make it commercial free is now the most important thing ever?

Or maybe they think things like "volcano monitoring" or "earthquake preparedness" are wastes of money?
Click to expand...


I wasn't suggesting that it wouldn't screw things up. Quite the contrary. Perhaps you overlooked the mention in my initial post of "unintended consequences" and "interesting".

That would be "interesting" as in the sense of "old Chinese curse". ("May you live in interesting times.")

:p

The third of those "Chinese curses" is "May you find what you're looking for.", a variation of "Be careful what you wish for. You may get it."

That was sort of my point. When I hear people bitching about excruciatingly minor items their "tax dollars are spent on" I always wonder what would ensue if they actually were given control of that disbursement.

Maybe I was being overly subtle. I need to use more smilies, I guess.
 
quadraginta said:
I wasn't suggesting that it wouldn't screw things up. Quite the contrary. Perhaps you overlooked the mention in my initial post of "unintended consequences" and "interesting".

That would be "interesting" as in the sense of "old Chinese curse". ("May you live in interesting times.")

:p

The third of those "Chinese curses" is "May you find what you're looking for.", a variation of "Be careful what you wish for. You may get it."

That was sort of my point. When I hear people bitching about excruciatingly minor items their "tax dollars are spent on" I always wonder what would ensue if they actually were given control of that disbursement.

Maybe I was being overly subtle. I need to use more smilies, I guess.
Click to expand...

I figured what you were getting at. My post was more aimed at people who have seriously suggested this in the past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom