First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply PBS and NPR to lose federal funding
14725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Houma
Offline
Posted 3/16/17 , edited 3/16/17
$450M/320M (AT&T takes more government money than that yearly by themselves FYI -not counting tax breaks https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/11/big-isps-dwell-in-tax-break-heaven-according-to-corporate-tax-study/ )

$1.41 per person, per year.

Factor in that we typically see weekly payouts... $0.03 per check withheld for this purpose. (obviously not an actual figure, contribution varies)

Pennies

25688 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 3/16/17 , edited 3/16/17

ninjitsuko wrote:
When we're paying more for a military that is more useless than Sesame Street, at least.


We use the military all the time, though.
429 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/16/17

octorockandroll wrote:


Tyrconnell wrote:

So, without the 18% (PBS) or less than 15% (NPR) funding from the government, they are doomed!

Here's a few things to ponder about these organizations, the following are reported levels of compensation from 2013 (IRS Form 990)
Harrison of CPB: $434,364
Knell of NPR : $756,575
Kerger of PBS: $779.954

Compensation for the top executives at the local top 74 NPR/PBS stations went from a low of $89,000 to a high of $790.115

Figures are from this chart:
http://current.org/2015/11/the-numbers-what-top-executives-are-making/


I'm not saying that the rest of your post is wrong but are you seriously trying to say that losing close to a 5th of your income isn't a big deal? Because it kinda is.


Thing is, that the shows/stations/etc could survive, others have, and with larger hits to their funding stream, but when a non-profit organization that pays it's executives 3/4 a million a year claims it needs taxpayer money, I tend to get a little "yeah, right."
36328 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / U.S.
Offline
Posted 3/16/17
This is dreadful news. If the budget cuts were going fund things like healthcare, medical research, or basic infrastructure I would feel better about it. But more military and defense spending? Those are the two things that don't need more money. Our intelligence agencies have far too much power and seems as of late to be politically motivated. In terms of military, we already spend more than any other nation in that area. Our war on terror is becoming Vietnam 2.0. When will we have expended enough effort and call it quits? Or when will someone at the top stop asking hard questions about strategy and alternatives? A country cannot be at war endlessly.

There will always be people who hate America and will do violence. We could sacrifice all our remaining freedoms and privacy to the government and people would still die in attacks. We could spend and endless amount of money on the military and police and we would never be 100% safe from crime. The government has many responsibilities beyond police, intelligence, and the military. Cutting everything else to expand and already large military is something you'd expect to read North Korea or their ilk doing. We're better than that. Besides, shrinking some departments only to make one facet of the government much bigger isn't living up to the ideal of a smaller government anyway.

Is there anyone out there that really thinks we need to be spending over 50 billion dollars more on defense? Who thinks that's a good idea?
Ejanss 
16639 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/16/17 , edited 3/16/17

Tyrconnell wrote:
Thing is, that the shows/stations/etc could survive, others have, and with larger hits to their funding stream, but when a non-profit organization that pays it's executives 3/4 a million a year claims it needs taxpayer money, I tend to get a little "yeah, right."


Now, I realize this is wandering off the specific topic to the abstract, but:
Must EVERYONE in opposition to Trump's policies turn out to be secret "hypocrites", or is there some actual stance you can champion on your own that the public can get behind?

It's starting to get a little old.
429 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/16/17

MysticGon wrote:


Tyrconnell wrote:

So, without the 18% (PBS) or less than 15% (NPR) funding from the government, they are doomed!

Here's a few things to ponder about these organizations, the following are reported levels of compensation from 2013 (IRS Form 990)
Harrison of CPB: $434,364
Knell of NPR : $756,575
Kerger of PBS: $779.954

Compensation for the top executives at the local top 74 NPR/PBS stations went from a low of $89,000 to a high of $790.115

Figures are from this chart:
http://current.org/2015/11/the-numbers-what-top-executives-are-making/



If Congress supports Trump's proposal, it would cause "the collapse of the public media system itself and the end of this essential national service," Corporation for Public Broadcasting CEO Patricia Harrison said in a statement Thursday morning.




Since 2005 she's been the boss of the CPB, nice gig.
11419 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 3/16/17

Tyrconnell wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


Tyrconnell wrote:

So, without the 18% (PBS) or less than 15% (NPR) funding from the government, they are doomed!

Here's a few things to ponder about these organizations, the following are reported levels of compensation from 2013 (IRS Form 990)
Harrison of CPB: $434,364
Knell of NPR : $756,575
Kerger of PBS: $779.954

Compensation for the top executives at the local top 74 NPR/PBS stations went from a low of $89,000 to a high of $790.115

Figures are from this chart:
http://current.org/2015/11/the-numbers-what-top-executives-are-making/


I'm not saying that the rest of your post is wrong but are you seriously trying to say that losing close to a 5th of your income isn't a big deal? Because it kinda is.


Thing is, that the shows/stations/etc could survive, others have, and with larger hits to their funding stream, but when a non-profit organization that pays it's executives 3/4 a million a year claims it needs taxpayer money, I tend to get a little "yeah, right."


Yeah I get that the whole "non-profit" thing in this context is barely more legit than it was with Sarkesian, but my issue was just with the first sentence taken on it's own, as I really cannot get behind the idea that losing such a big quantity of one's income is small potatoes.
859 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / PA, USA
Offline
Posted 3/16/17
I don't know about NPR, but PBS has been struggling for years, and there's been talk of it losing funding for, at least, a year. I sure wish that I had the foresight to save links to share. As much as I personally enjoy watching PBS (or did, anyway), it's had a foot in the grave for some time. I imagine that NPR has been afflicted with the same plight.
429 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/16/17

Ejanss wrote:


Tyrconnell wrote:
Thing is, that the shows/stations/etc could survive, others have, and with larger hits to their funding stream, but when a non-profit organization that pays it's executives 3/4 a million a year claims it needs taxpayer money, I tend to get a little "yeah, right."


Now, I realize this is wandering off the specific topic to the abstract, but:
Must EVERYONE in opposition to Trump's policies turn out to be secret "hypocrites", or is there some actual stance you can champion on your own that the public can get behind?

It's starting to get a little old.


Explain yourself, because your statement makes no sense in respect to what I wrote.
6880 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/16/17
I don't really see PBS going anywhere, although maybe its just complacency on my part. Still, I doubt any politician wants to be remembered by the public as the guy who killed Big Bird.
15100 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Massachusetts
Offline
Posted 3/16/17

EarthLight22 wrote:

This is dreadful news. If the budget cuts were going fund things like healthcare, medical research, or basic infrastructure I would feel better about it. But more military and defense spending? Those are the two things that don't need more money. Our intelligence agencies have far too much power and seems as of late to be politically motivated. In terms of military, we already spend more than any other nation in that area. Our war on terror is becoming Vietnam 2.0. When will we have expended enough effort and call it quits? Or when will someone at the top stop asking hard questions about strategy and alternatives? A country cannot be at war endlessly.

There will always be people who hate America and will do violence. We could sacrifice all our remaining freedoms and privacy to the government and people would still die in attacks. We could spend and endless amount of money on the military and police and we would never be 100% safe from crime. The government has many responsibilities beyond police, intelligence, and the military. Cutting everything else to expand and already large military is something you'd expect to read North Korea or their ilk doing. We're better than that. Besides, shrinking some departments only to make one facet of the government much bigger isn't living up to the ideal of a smaller government anyway.

Is there anyone out there that really thinks we need to be spending over 50 billion dollars more on defense? Who thinks that's a good idea?


So long at Trump's at the helm that's gonna be the way of it. Remember he said we need to start winning wars again, implying he thinks it's disgraceful we haven't just beaten the terrorists. To him that makes us look weak, regardless of the fact the War on Terror has dragged on to the point where even if we do somehow win, the cost in lives, money, and political fallout is likely to ensure we still end up losing. But none of that matters to Donald, the important thing is we punch them really hard in the face and show them who's boss. Nevermind that when you try to do that against terrorists they scatter, you end up hitting someone else in the crossfire, look like the bad guy, and suddenly even more people take up arms against you. And Trump would probably have us keep on swinging until there was no one left to rise, and he was confident we showed them the pecking order.

His priority has always been to do the thing that makes him look like the big guy, to assert his dominance over others. He can't stand the idea of looking weak or not winning, thus he'll commit us to winning a war it was probably never possible to win in the first place. Trump cares about the egg on his face, about the people he thinks are laughing at us and more importantly at him. In his ultimately doomed quest to be taken seriously and show those people who's the boss he'll toss lives, money and so much of value down the drain for the sake of satisfying is pride.

We're dealing with a man who headed a television show that was based around him getting to assert his authority over his subordinates. The only thing he has ever truly cared about is his own vanity. And he's willing to have us pay any cost to ensure it's well stroked.
10768 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 3/16/17 , edited 3/16/17

octorockandroll wrote:


Except he never said "It's not big at all", he was clearly saying that it's small when directly compared to the amount spent on something that isn't getting a budget cut and I'm pretty sure is actually getting a bigger budget. Those are pretty different things to say. Not that it matters seeing as the argument of the meaningfulness of a number being determined by how little else one person has to do than count up to whatever large number out loud holds no weight at all and is in no way indicative of how strong the number's impact will be.


Oh, totally. For sure the four billion is small in comparison to many billions more. But my point is that saying so doesn't meaningfully diminish the significance of the four billion cut. It's like saying "Well, being crushed by four billion pounds is small in comparison to being crushed by four trillion pounds". So what? You'll still get turned to jelly either way. So a four billion cut is still meaningful to me, in the same way that not being crushed by four billion pounds is meaningful, even if four billion pounds is small in comparison to four trillion pounds. It's a good step, and a meaningful step.
33176 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 3/16/17
They should cut the entire Federal Reserve first

End The Fed
11419 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 3/16/17

karatecowboy wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


Except he never said "It's not big at all", he was clearly saying that it's small when directly compared to the amount spent on something that isn't getting a budget cut and I'm pretty sure is actually getting a bigger budget. Those are pretty different things to say. Not that it matters seeing as the argument of the meaningfulness of a number being determined by how little else one person has to do than count up to whatever large number out loud holds no weight at all and is in no way indicative of how strong the number's impact will be.


Oh, totally. For sure the four billion is small in comparison to many billions more. But my point is that saying so doesn't meaningfully diminish the significance of the four billion cut. It's like saying "Well, being crushed by four billion pounds is small in comparison to being crushed by four trillion pounds". So what? You'll still get turned to jelly either way. So a four billion cut is still meaningful to me, in the same way that not being crushed by four billion pounds is meaningful, even if four billion pounds is small in comparison to four trillion pounds.


But the issue in this context is that the four billion pounds seem like they're just going to be added to the four trillion pounds. And you're still going to be paying most of that tax money, it just won't go to the same thing as before, so you're still gonna be jelly. If Balzak's estimates are corect, taxpayers will only be saving under $1.50 a year. I appreciate being able to afford one additional cup of coffee, but it's not what I would consider a tangible impact.
10768 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 3/16/17 , edited 3/16/17

octorockandroll wrote:


Wihl wrote:

There is nothing stopping you if you feel like it from funding NPR and PBS yourself.


Oh wow, I never thought of it that way. Brb, I'm gonna go take the ~$1000 I saved up for school out of the bank. That's enough to fund two separate television networks, right?


IOW: I need other people's money to get what I want.

They can do crowdfunding. Let them win over their customers, just like everybody else.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.