First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply PBS and NPR to lose federal funding
10458 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 3/16/17

octorockandroll wrote:


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.


Why does it seem that way to you?
10960 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 3/16/17

karatecowboy wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


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.


Why does it seem that way to you?


Because even in the finacially tight position of a student I really don't need an extra $1.45 a year, especially when it goes to something important and beneficial.
4309 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 3/16/17
If the funding from PBS and/or NPR were to go to something meaningful, like infrastructure or education, I'd probably be okay with those two being defunded. Especially since they are kind of in the business of education (just not in the way we'd usually associate education). I'd consider that probably a good trade-off. But... military. Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy do they need so much. Is it really so much to ask that we take like... half the defense budget and allocate it amongst the other programs? Hell a quarter would probably be okay.

Patriotism and nationalism is okay but not in excessive amounts. We will need to start adopting a globalist perspective at some point.
86696 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 3/16/17 , edited 3/16/17
Since it is only $1.40 they can obviously do without it! With all the media choices there is no need for public broadcasting (Big bird is rich after all). With the excessive military cuts over the years it is good to build back the military (4.5% GDP). All those $1.40 programs (not to mention regulatory costs) really add up after awhile ...talk about being "nickle and dimed to death!"
Ejanss 
16493 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/16/17 , edited 3/16/17

dougeprofile wrote:

Since it is only $1.40 they can obviously do without it! With all the media choices there is no need for public broadcasting (Big bird is rich after all).


It's amazing how many idiots still think so. (Eg., every time they shop the toy aisles at Target.)

In fact, Sesame Workshop, which is all that's now left of the Children's Television Workshop that once gave us the Electric Company and Square One TV, is a non-profit organization, which not only co-funds its own shows, but helps work to export overseas versions in other war/strife-torn countries like Albania and South Africa, that would otherwise be thin on pre-school television--
Never mind television meant to promote positive social messages to children about getting along with others, where it's more of a problem.

But then, that would make it part of that "Globalist world outreach" thing that's also getting slashed as icky and unnecessary.

(And in fact, back in 1969, upper NYC was considered a "war zone", and saying that growing up in it wasn't so bad if you were friends with the People In Your Neighborhood was considered a shocking cultural thunderbolt at the time...)
5684 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Florida
Offline
Posted 3/16/17
Some fun facts that you may not be aware of: PBS airs on what would normally be a public station. Public stations for PBS are responsible for providing their own funding after they receive the fees for their use of the channel from the federal government. There is a reason they have lots of fund raisers. It is because the money raised by one station in one area doesn't assist any other station in any other area. The same can be said for NPR. You can read about PBS here; http://www.pbs.org/about/producing-pbs/funding/ . The PBS name is responsible for obtaining the legal rights to shows and providing consultations to their member stations. This is why some shows may air at different times and sometimes even on different days when comparing the program guides between two areas.
86696 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 3/16/17 , edited 3/16/17

Ejanss wrote:


dougeprofile wrote:

Since it is only $1.40 they can obviously do without it! With all the media choices there is no need for public broadcasting (Big bird is rich after all).


It's amazing how many idiots still think so.

It's amazing how many ****** still think public funding is still necessary; it is redundant and should have been cut decades ago (actually, they never should have started it to begin with). Since most media/art is privately funded anyway, there is no excuse to squander public funds. Not worrying about controversial art is a bonus.
388 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 3/16/17 , edited 3/16/17
The numbers aren't set in stone, really, because...

----

http://www.vox.com/2017/2/27/14751872/budget-process-explained

According to this article, Donald Trump's budget is just the first step in how money will be apportioned. Many decisions have to be made in the House and the Senate for the budget to be passed.

http://www.vox.com/2017/3/14/14924524/denis-mcdonough-podcast

According to this podcast interview, since 2010, money that gets handed out from Congress is apportioned through ad-hoc continuing resolutions and not from top-down policy dictated by the President. That's because of disagreement between and within the parties, such that most of the budget ends up on the cutting room floor.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/donald-trump-meet-sequestration/519798/

On top of that, Donald Trump's budget has to overcome spending caps for individual categories such as defense, through a Congressional rule called sequestration that has the force of law. Republicans will need all their votes and the cooperation of eight Democrats to exceed the defense spending cap, and the chances of that are small.

----

So basically, everything is still up in the air, and anything can still happen, since so much spending these days is apportioned through last minute deals on the Senate and House floor.
42349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
suffering
Offline
Posted 3/16/17 , edited 3/16/17
Yeah, and where's all that funding gonna go? Into the president's utterly useless 'wall' project?
God I hope not.
Continually spend my tax dollars on PBS instead, thanks.
51624 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 3/17/17
Wanna save taxpayers money? How about not going to Maralago every fucking weekend to the tune of over $3 million every time. Let's do the math!
3,000,000 x 52 = $156,000,000 x 8 = $1,248,000,000

Hmm, according to math, Trump will waste about a sixth of the amount of money he is "saving" by removing funding from PBS/NPR just so he can go to his own resort that puts money in his own pocket and is destroying the budget for the county it is located in.
http://time.com/money/4703151/donald-trump-mar-a-lago-costs-taxpayers-palm-beach/
And let's not forget the millions being spent so Melania can stay in New York.
https://www.bustle.com/p/how-much-does-it-cost-for-melania-trump-to-live-in-new-york-it-aint-cheap-37347

I love how the idiots in DC always talk about cutting government spending, while wasting enormous amounts on themselves.
For instance, for each Senator, an Average of $3,306,570 and each Representative $1,268,520 per year(Not including their personal salaries)
https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/9c14ec69-c4e4-4bd8-8953-f73daa1640e4.pdf
Those elected officials gotta have their bloated staff though.
22322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Online
Posted 3/17/17

eldos1 wrote:

How can you have freedom of the press (media/arts) when the government is funding it?


I do not think it is infringement when there are a lot of options. Repressing media you do not like is pretty tyrannical on the Government's behalf, but this is not the case. One should be normally cautious of government sponsored programming, but in America, it seems that due to the need to be bipartisan nature that it ends up being a compromise between the two parties.

In any case, while Trump destroying it is irresponsible and niggardly when the money spent is completely negligible, I think the bright side is, at least he isn't turning into the pro-Trump channel.

Imagine, Sesame Street. Letter of the Day is T, as in Trump.

27697 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Online
Posted 3/17/17 , edited 3/17/17

cyberfaust wrote:

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.


Most channels would kill to have syndicated reruns of Sesame Street on their channel. I mean 4,456 episodes should be enough material.

These days the available content for early childhood education has become so vast and the way it's consumed so varied that it can't be used as reason to fund the rest of the stations anymore. NPR has no early childhood programming at all. It's a different, more partisan country than before so we can't say NPR/PBS were successful in bringing people together. Instead they have become more partisan, so they no longer have a moral or practical benefit.
37629 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/17/17 , edited 3/17/17
Republicans have been going after NPR, PBS, and the arts endowment for decades. Nothing new here, we are just in for another nasty budget fight and these are the opening salvos.
Posted 3/17/17
The only show i watch is the Antique Road show it really interesting by PBS.

I think I shall hit up some antique shops this weekend
10458 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 3/17/17

octorockandroll wrote:


Because even in the finacially tight position of a student I really don't need an extra $1.45 a year, especially when it goes to something important and beneficial.


What I meant to ask is why does it seem to you that the money will just be spent elsewhere? Also, if it's a $1.45, then you can easily donate that to the IRS for use in these things, without the coercive element.



DarthRutsula wrote:

If the funding from PBS and/or NPR were to go to something meaningful, like infrastructure or education, I'd probably be okay with those two being defunded. Especially since they are kind of in the business of education (just not in the way we'd usually associate education). I'd consider that probably a good trade-off. But... military. Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy do they need so much. Is it really so much to ask that we take like... half the defense budget and allocate it amongst the other programs? Hell a quarter would probably be okay.

Patriotism and nationalism is okay but not in excessive amounts. We will need to start adopting a globalist perspective at some point.



Given that oikophobic bigotry is the predominant impetus behind one of the two nationally dominating parties, I don't think it's reasonable to say we have excessive amounts of nationalism.

Taking a globalist perspective is pretty unethical; a man who loves other nations as much as his own is on the same level as a man who loves other women as much as his own wife. Unless every nation on the Earth starts doing that at the same time(which nobody will do equally) then you're basically commiting treason.


dougeprofile wrote:

Since it is only $1.40 they can obviously do without it! With all the media choices there is no need for public broadcasting (Big bird is rich after all). With the excessive military cuts over the years it is good to build back the military (4.5% GDP). All those $1.40 programs (not to mention regulatory costs) really add up after awhile ...talk about being "nickle and dimed to death!"


Good point. If it's only $1.40 then they can do without it.




animegirl2222 wrote:

Yeah, and where's all that funding gonna go? Into the president's utterly useless 'wall' project?
God I hope not.
Continually spend my tax dollars on PBS instead, thanks.


The wall is not useless as it helps to deter people from sneaking across the border. Pres. Obama, along with Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, build ~700 miles of border wall before Pres. Trump started campaigning; they thought it was pretty useful.

If you want to donate to PBS, then put your money where your mouth is. http://www.pbs.org/donate/
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.