Senate Bill to Defund NPR

[Deus Ex Machiato]

Enjoy your high. When you come back to reality and look at a nearly 40 trillion dollars in debt, you can talk with the other boys at rehab about exactly what cuts should be made because cuts must be made. I figured public radio cuts, although painful to an astute high brow ear will effect the fewest citizens. Most of those effected will be in a position to fulfill their audio needs elsewhere. If you stop taking expensive drugs, you will too. Congratulations on recognizing your problem. It is the first step to recovery

It was a snarky post, but you appear to have missed the point.

I was not talking about USING drugs, but SELLING them. The profit margin on drugs (both legal and illegal) is quite high (no pun intended). If your premise - that making the most profit no matter what is the "American dream" - then becoming a dealer and selling street drugs is the pinnacle of that dream, and must be encouraged no matter the outcome for users. Right?

Of course, illicit street drugs like meth and fentanyl are extremely dangerous and destroy many lives, but hey...they're super profitable so it must be okay...right?

I made a reference to the movie "Idiocracy" earlier in the thread. In case you missed it, the premise is that 500 years in the future, the world has become so dumbed-down that an average man (who time travels to said future) is suddenly the smartest person in the world. In that future, TV has made it to the point where the only show is "Oww, My Balls," which features 24/7 videos of guys getting hit in the nuts.

In any case - and one more time with feeling - if you think "defunding" public broadcasting will make a difference in that debt (which you seem to be inflating with every post), I've got some ocean front property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.

 

[TheBigA]

If the Corporation for Public Broadcasting stopped receiving taxpayer money, and an overall reduction in grants and funding reduced tax rates, people would have more money and more reason to donate to CPB.

That assumes that the money they cut from public broadcasting will be given to the people. It won't. We went through this in the 80s. It was called the "trickle down theory." Cut government expenses, cut taxes, and the people have more money. The problem is they didn't cut taxes for everyone, just big corporations. So the people never got that money. It all went to the big corporations and the very rich. That's what's about to happen again. The people won't have more money to donate.

BTW the public can't donate to CPB. That's not what CPB does. What it does is take the federal money and give it to the states. It's a very republican idea, because it was created by republicans. Give federal dollars to the states and let them decide how to spend it. Sounds like a great idea. That's how CPB works, and these people want to destroy it. All that does is hurt the states, who will have to raise local taxes to pay for local services.

 

[Hyrum]

It was a snarky post, but you appear to have missed the point.

I was not talking about USING drugs, but SELLING them. The profit margin on drugs (both legal and illegal) is quite high (no pun intended). If your premise - that making the most profit no matter what is the "American dream" - then becoming a dealer and selling street drugs is the pinnacle of that dream, and must be encouraged no matter the outcome for users. Right?

Of course, illicit street drugs like meth and fentanyl are extremely dangerous and destroy many lives, but hey...they're super profitable so it must be okay...right?

I made a reference to the movie "Idiocracy" earlier in the thread. In case you missed it, the premise is that 500 years in the future, the world has become so dumbed-down that an average man (who time travels to said future) is suddenly the smartest person in the world. In that future, TV has made it to the point where the only show is "Oww, My Balls," which features 24/7 videos of guys getting hit in the nuts.

In any case - and one more time with feeling - if you think "defunding" public broadcasting will make a difference in that debt (which you seem to be inflating with every post), I've got some ocean front property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.

It was a snarky post, but you appear to have missed the point.

I was not talking about USING drugs, but SELLING them. The profit margin on drugs (both legal and illegal) is quite high (no pun intended). If your premise - that making the most profit no matter what is the "American dream" - then becoming a dealer and selling street drugs is the pinnacle of that dream, and must be encouraged no matter the outcome for users. Right?

Of course, illicit street drugs like meth and fentanyl are extremely dangerous and destroy many lives, but hey...they're super profitable so it must be okay...right?

I made a reference to the movie "Idiocracy" earlier in the thread. In case you missed it, the premise is that 500 years in the future, the world has become so dumbed-down that an average man (who time travels to said future) is suddenly the smartest person in the world. In that future, TV has made it to the point where the only show is "Oww, My Balls," which features 24/7 videos of guys getting hit in the nuts.

In any case - and one more time with feeling - if you think "defunding" public broadcasting will make a difference in that debt (which you seem to be inflating with every post), I've got some ocean front property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.

Ouch. Seeling drugs is worse than taking them. You could get deported. What I am saying that sacred cows can't be scared. Cuts have to be made. Perhaps you disagree, but a guy with a calculator showed me that it is true. Now if it comes to radio, there are enough stations to cover every format if it is viable. I am sorry that people are stupid and getting worse, but you can't force feed quality programs to people. Those who want such quality , the smart people like you, will find it and spent their own money to hear it. We dummies will either listen to the free ad supported stuff or turn it off. Personally I will be too busy in the future broadcasting the ball kicking competition and collecting all those advertising dollars. But I won't be costing tax payers a single cent. And don't you worry because if people don't want ball busting entertainment, I will change formats. Let the public decide.

 

[wadio]

That assumes that the money they cut from public broadcasting will be given to the people. It won't. We went through this in the 80s. It was called the "trickle down theory." Cut government expenses, cut taxes, and the people have more money. The problem is they didn't cut taxes for everyone, just big corporations. So the people never got that money. It all went to the big corporations and the very rich.

Then the very rich can and probably will step up to fund public broadcasting.

That's what's about to happen again. The people won't have more money to donate.

Don't count on it. We have a new administration now. 🙂

 

[almaniac27]

A new administration that subscribes to the same economic philosophy as the last 7.

 

[TheBigA]

Then the very rich can and probably will step up to fund public broadcasting.

A lot of them already do. But that's why NPR sounds very stuffy and very rich. It reflects those stuffy and rich doners. Radio programming reflects the people who listen. Rich people don't listen to conservative talk radio. How do I know? Listen to the quality of advertising. Are they trying to sell you expensive cars or jewelry? Or are they selling you drugs and get-rich-quick schemes? You don't hear that kind of thing in public radio. But it ends up sounding "elitist." So sure, let's blow everything up so the rich can get their tax cuts and fund public radio. Let's cut federal funding to the states so local taxes have to go up to replace the federal dollars. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. We've seen this movie before.

 

[Deus Ex Machiato]

I am sorry that people are stupid and getting worse, but you can't force feed quality programs to people. Those who want such quality , the smart people like you, will find it and spent their own money to hear it. We dummies will either listen to the free ad supported stuff or turn it off. Personally I will be too busy in the future broadcasting the ball kicking competition and collecting all those advertising dollars. But I won't be costing tax payers a single cent. And don't you worry because if people don't want ball busting entertainment, I will change formats. Let the public decide.

You seem to have this odd fixation on the idea that people are being "forced" to do this or that. Nobody is "force-feeding" programs to anyone. Public radio and television are quite popular. Here in Phoenix, the NPR affiliate is competitive with the other news stations and (if you go by 6+) doing very well in general...currently sitting at #7. Not bad for a station that features local news, BBC World News, and other content you no doubt consider boring.

I don't spend any of my own money to find this or any other programming on the radio dial. It's supported by ads or - in the case of the local NPR station - donors. You also have this odd notion that the bulk of your taxes are being ripped from your bank account under cover of night and handed over to a public broadcasting executive twirling his mustache and saying "we'll make those kids learn to count no matter what their parents want...bring on the vampire Muppet!" As the meme goes, "that's not how this works. That's not how any of this works!"

The public has decided. For the most part, folks are just fine with a few pennies of their (local and state) taxes going to fund their local public stations. Yes, there are very loud ideologues (you, apparently) who think that cutting Sesame Street will have more impact on the debt than cutting the funds for one medium sized Navy destroyer or two, but I chalk that up to misinformation leading us to a future of testicular impacting "entertainment." Gotta keep the masses placated with bread and circuses after all.

 

[TheBigA]

Here's an article that puts the government funding freeze and public broadcasting in perspective:

Public Radio Grants in Limbo As White House Tries Fund Freeze - Radio Ink

After years of Conservative efforts to end government grants for public radio, President Donald Trump has frozen federal funding to CPB.

radioink.com

 

[Cold Coffee]

Is this debate really about balancing a budget? Or, is it about silencing voices we don't agree with?

 

[wadio]

A lot of them already do. But that's why NPR sounds very stuffy and very rich. It reflects those stuffy and rich doners. Radio programming reflects the people who listen. Rich people don't listen to conservative talk radio. How do I know? Listen to the quality of advertising. Are they trying to sell you expensive cars or jewelry? Or are they selling you drugs and get-rich-quick schemes? You don't hear that kind of thing in public radio. But it ends up sounding "elitist."

Good points.

So sure, let's blow everything up so the rich can get their tax cuts and fund public radio. Let's cut federal funding to the states so local taxes have to go up to replace the federal dollars. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. We've seen this movie before.

But would cutting off the 1% Public Broadcasting gets from the Government amount to blowing anything up?

 

[TheBigA]

But would cutting off the 1% Public Broadcasting gets from the Government amount to blowing anything up?

Once again, the money goes to the states, not NPR. It has for 40 years. The 1% you're talking about is CPB money that goes to NPR. The rest goes to the states. it would hurt the states that own public radio stations, which are mainly in red states. So all it would do is cause the states to raise taxes. It's obvious from reading the quotes from these people that they want to shut down NPR. Defunding CPB isn't the way to do it. All they do is hurt their home states. Same thing with shutting down the Department of Education. All that does is disrupt funding to the states. The American system of government is a delicate balancing act. We pay taxes to the feds, and they distribute it to the states. Disrupt that balance (as we've seen this past week) and you disrupt other things. They want to end the "administrative state," but millions of people depend on that in ways they don't know.

 

[Hyrum]

You seem to have this odd fixation on the idea that people are being "forced" to do this or that. Nobody is "force-feeding" programs to anyone. Public radio and television are quite popular.

I don't mean people are forced to listen. I mean if a station is publicly supported through any government (taxes) giveaway, I am being forced to support something I may or may not want. If it is quality programming, it doesn't need forced financial support. I am against ALL government programs with a few basic exceptions like military protection, roads, and a very few regulatory agencies to prevent wood chips in beef being called "healthy ruffage' Basic broadcasting is something we don't need to support Government funds are better used elsewhere.

I don't spend any of my own money to find this or any other programming on the radio dial. It's supported by ads or - in the case of the local NPR station - donors. You also have this odd notion that the bulk of your taxes are being ripped from your bank account under cover of night and handed over to a public broadcasting executive twirling his mustache and saying "we'll make those kids learn to count no matter what their parents want...bring on the vampire Muppet!" As the meme goes, "that's not how this works. That's not how any of this works!"

How does it work? It seems I pay a LOT in taxes to support the local school system where the average 12th grader may not have the reading skills one would wish. So if we have a school system to educate the young, we might not need to have the Muppets and the subsidies it took to create Sesame Street. Let's test Big Bird for the bird flue and if he comes back clean, eat him.

The public has decided. For the most part, folks are just fine with a few pennies of their (local and state) taxes going to fund their local public stations. Yes, there are very loud ideologues (you, apparently) who think that cutting Sesame Street will have more impact on the debt than cutting the funds for one

I'm happy that most folk want to contribute to public broadcasting. I encourage their voluntary contributions. I resent those few pennies of mine being used for it. I like to decide what do good stuff I wish to support.

Yes, there are very loud ideologues (you, apparently) who think that cutting Sesame Street will have more impact on the debt than cutting the funds for one medium sized Navy destroyer or two, but I chalk that up to misinformation leading us to a future of testicular impacting "entertainment." Gotta keep the masses placated with bread and circuses after all.

This board is abort broadcasting. I commented on what I feel is necessary broadcasting. Watch for me on the Military Testicular Impact board for my thoughts on Navy destroyers.

 

[TheBigA]

I mean if a station is publicly supported through any government (taxes) giveaway, I am being forced to support something I may or may not want.

That's how public education works. If you don't have kids, you still pay taxes that support public education. There are a lot of things that the government supports that aren't used by everyone. They don't ask you about every little thing they fund. The federal government built a lot of interstates in West Virginia that most people will never use. That's our system. That's how we got to be the greatest country in the world.

In terms of public broadcasting, the majority of it is paid for by users. That was the plan republicans came up with the last time we had a "small government" guy in the white house. The battle was already fought, and the system is already in place.

 

[TheBigA]

The white house has now rescinded the order that stopped federal funding:

Trump administration rescinds order attempting to freeze federal aid spending

The move comes just one day after the order was issued and a federal district judge temporarily halted it.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Hyrum]

That's how public education works. If you don't have kids, you still pay taxes that support public education. There are a lot of things that the government supports that aren't used by everyone.

Agreed. Let's keep the ones we need and drop the ones we don't

They don't ask you about every little thing they fund. The federal government built a lot of interstates in West Virginia that most people will never use. That's our system.

Apples and oranges Roads are necessary for commerce and a million other reasons. Public radio with todays thousands of new and entertainment choices might not be so necessary.

That's how we got to be the greatest country in the world.

How many trillions in debt? Greatest is debatable, but I'll defer judgement until I actually visit every country in the world.

In terms of public broadcasting, the majority of it is paid for by users. That was the plan republicans came up with the last time we had a "small government" guy in the white house. The battle was already fought, and the system is already in place.

In place forever and ever? I would suggest that EVERY cent spent by the government should be questioned until the national debt is paid off

 

[Deus Ex Machiato]

I am against ALL government programs with a few basic exceptions like military protection, roads, and a very few regulatory agencies to prevent wood chips in beef being called "healthy ruffage' Basic broadcasting is something we don't need to support Government funds are better used elsewhere.

Well that's your opinion and you're welcome to it of course. Not surprising that the military is off limits to cuts in your opinion, but what's so necessary about roads and safe food? Those problems can easily be solved by the private sector, right? Businesses can self-regulate, and people can just pay directly for the roads they want, right?

I think the response above from TheBigA explains things quite clearly, but something something water, horse, drink.

And yes, this board is about broadcasting. Something done on the public airwaves and done with responsibilities to the public like providing information and emergency response in times of national emergency. When we were attacked on 9/11/2001, just about every commercial broadcast outlet became a de facto news outlet. I spent that entire day gathering information, editing audio from officials, and trying to make sure we discharged our duty to keep our listeners informed. We suspended all commercials because in that moment making money took a back seat to serving the public as dictated by our license. You don't seem to fully grasp this part of being a broadcaster.

 

[TheBigA]

Agreed. Let's keep the ones we need and drop the ones we don't

Who makes that decision? What is their criteria for what we keep and what we don't? Is it public service or political ideology?

I don't need public education. I already got mine. Who cares about anybody else? That seems to be the thinking today.

Our country is based on a representative government. We pay representatives who run the government.

How many trillions in debt?

Who has the power to print money? The government. They can solve the debt crisis easily. They can simply tax big corporations. But they don't.