That’s pretty hilarious, especially coming from Krauthammer of all people.

“If NPR Is Superior, Why Must It ‘Live On The Tit Of The State?”

I think this is a perfect question for the always-haughty, always obtuse, and always-wrong Paul Krugman to answer. He’s due for at least a couple screeching diatribes this week, taking great offense at the bludgeoning that ‘Those Of His Ilk’ are suffering.

What’s so hilarious, especially coming from Krauthammer? Do you find logic hilarious?

Why is Charles thinking of NPR’s tits? especially when it was run by a Female.

skyfet said:
Why is Charles thinking of NPR’s tits? especially when it was run by a Female.

Says the biggest boob on Mediaite!

Such foul language

skyfet said:
Why is Charles thinking of NPR’s tits? especially when it was run by a Female.

Leave it to Professor skyfet to grasp the situation like no one else can .

The thing is PBS could easily survive with no public funding and I have a feeling that NPR could as well with only some slight format modifications. They only receive what, 2% of their budget from public funds. We could better use that money towards funding local and state law enforcement, fixing interstate highways, or some other job that the government is supposed to be doing. The government should not be involved in propping up a media network. I don’t recall that being an express power of the government in the constitution.

This is why firemen are inferior to bucket brigades.

notsofast said:
Says the biggest boob on Mediaite!

Don’t let me start with you. You are like an a woman that always return to an abusive husband/partner. I’m tired of embarrassing you Jeffery, go away. lol

Is that how you guys are going to run with this one? Instead of focusing on the argument itself, you’ll attempt to distract by talking about a perfectly acceptable (and classicially used) phrase)?

Wow.

Anyone got an answer for why the government needs to donate to NPR and PBS, especially if they’re so great?

NPR and PBS are the only oultlets that provide in depth coverage of events…the national free news channels, ABC, NBC and CBS spend 10 minutes hitting the highlights of the day and then Diane and Katie spend the rest of the half hour doing crappy feature stories…if the american public wants an un varnish view of the world events…we need the two outlets to thrive……………..we waste more of the budget payin lousy politicians that do a crappy job representing the people and more time whoring themselves to big business……………….

ImNotBlue said:
Anyone got an answer for why the government needs to donate to NPR and PBS, especially if they’re so great?

I think this sums it up. I hope NPR keeps on trucking, just not on taxpayer money.

NPR’s financials reveal it gets about 5% of its funding from federal and state governments. Since its revenues in ’08 were $160m, that means about $8m came from BOTH federal and local governments.

Would saving $8m be helpful? Of course. Is NPR the reason we’re hemorrhaging money? No. It’s 2.5 cents per American per year. Meanwhile, we’re spending tens of billions on oil subsidies and hundreds of billions on two foreign wars. If we’re going to talk about government finance, NPR is a non-entity.

If instead you want to shut it down because of a perceived left-leaning bias, there’s always going to be a bias in media. To say that because of this, the government shouldn’t be involved at all in producing media, is an argument worth having. An argument NOT worth having is Krauthammer complaining about the 3 cents that came out of his pocket for our government to fund a news organization.

‘
I want our tax money to go to FOX
This country needs to start investing in WINNERS!

skyfet said:
Why is Charles thinking of NPR’s tits? especially when it was run by a Female.

Ummm. He was talking about the state’s tits and not NPRs. But I guess with your logic he was trying to make some sort of lesbian joke being that the head of NPR is a woman. Or perhaps he was talking about all the woman in the goverment or in the state. Perhaps he ment all the boobs in the world.

But really your statement, if at all serious, was really sort of dumb. Not only in content but in the fact that you got the statement wrong.

I loved this segment!

Then Totenberg wished AIDS on his grandkids.

Kined said:
An argument NOT worth having is Krauthammer complaining about the 3 cents that came out of his pocket for our government to fund a news organization.

It most certainly is, the point being it’s HIS 3 cents…It doesn’t matter if it’s 3 million dollars or 3 cents, if you want to hear NPR or watch PBS then YOU pay for it. The amount is immaterial, the principle is priceless.

skyfet said:
Why is Charles thinking of NPR’s tits? especially when it was run by a Female.

It’s not run by a female anymore, unless Vivian Schiller can run it from under that bus.

NPR is funded largely from private organizations. The Tea Party is racist. You know what is said at parties and in our families when no black people are around. We should not be hypocritical about it. He is getting blasted because NPR seeks and tells the truth. People who like Fox News like propaganda.

NPR is nothing but idealogical left wingers, but somehow the news comes out unbiased? Give me a break! Liberal arrogance on display once again.

Resistance Is Futile said:
NPR is funded largely from private organizations. The Tea Party is racist. You know what is said at parties and in our families when no black people are around. We should not be hypocritical about it. He is getting blasted because NPR seeks and tells the truth. People who like Fox News like propaganda.

The irony being that you’re making sweeting generalizations about people base don skin color.

Listen to NPR sometime….you’ll find that it’s actually very fair and clearly looks to present both sides of a story.

If you want liberal slant, go to MSNBC. But NPR really is a very far cry from MSNBC. Don’t take it from me, listen for yourself.

I think Nina Totenberg raises a fair point.

When other networks are covering Charlie Sheen and Lindsay Lohan to boost ratings, NPR actually reports on serious news.

That’s why we need more non-profit news outlets that don’t depend solely on ad revenue.

Resistance Is Futile said:
NPR is funded largely from private organizations. The Tea Party is racist. You know what is said at parties and in our families when no black people are around. We should not be hypocritical about it. He is getting blasted because NPR seeks and tells the truth. People who like Fox News like propaganda.

One can only imagine what is said at NPR, then, now that they’ve ethnically cleansed Juan Williams.

yeah, defund NPR and let Fox News do all the talking. Fox News is superior because it’s “fair and balanced.” Right, Jon Stewart?

BadGenome said:
One can only imagine what is said at NPR, then, now that they’ve ethnically cleansed Juan Williams.

No need to imagine. Just listen for yourself and you’ll find it’s not the liberal boogeyman the right likes to paint it as.

mandennis said:
yeah, defund NPR and let Fox News do all the talking. Fox News is superior because it’s “fair and balanced.” Right, Jon Stewart?

Because Fox News and NPR are the only two news outlets in the country, right?

mibwilso said:
No need to imagine. Just listen for yourself and you’ll find it’s not the liberal boogeyman the right likes to paint it as.

Not on the air, sure, but I was talking about behind the scenes. (Actually, I was just making a smart ass remark because I find it funny that the “racist” Tea Party has far more black members than the very, very not racist NPR has black employees.)

mibwilso said:
Listen to NPR sometime….you’ll find that it’s actually very fair and clearly looks to present both sides of a story.

Who are the conservatives that regularly appear on NPR?

skyfet said:
Why is Charles thinking of NPR’s tits? especially when it was run by a Female.

When you twist yourself into a pretzel like that, how long does it take you to straighten out? Oh, sorry, I’m assuming you do straighten out.

mandennis said:
yeah, defund NPR and let Fox News do all the talking. Fox News is superior because it’s “fair and balanced.” Right, Jon Stewart?

Wow, if NPR’s public funding is taken away the only news organization that will be left is FOX News! I didn’t know that, can you please explain how that will come about?

The left is afraid that Fox has bigger tits.

NPR (and PBS) have a left slant to Fox News fans because public broadcasting does indeed present much more nuanced, detailed, and factual story. It comes as a shock to Fox Newsies when a story isn’t full of conspiracy theories about how the left is behind all that ails America. Also, conspicuously absent are the left/right shouting matches that grab short attention spans. Public broadcasting encourages us to think, something Fox News, by virtue of their content, completely discourages.

BadGenome said:
Because Fox News and NPR are the only two news outlets in the country, right?

No. but we can gradually get rid of media outlets that we don’t agree with by simply saying “not on taxpayers’ dime.” but where does Fox News gets its resources and still calls itself “fair and balanced?” Jon Stewart has a archive of how Fox news is living up to its “fair and balanced” tag line.

RichS said:
Wow, if NPR’s public funding is taken away the only news organization that will be left is FOX News! I didn’t know that, can you please explain how that will come about?

no. but we can slowly get rid of media outlets we don’t agree with until Fox news is left with a few and maybe by its lonesome to spew conspiracies and calling everyone else “Nazis.”

Get rid of news you don’t agree with. Didn’t someone do that in the thirties?

So following NPR’s logic, I don’t need ratings to be successful. I could just say “my blog covers what matters” and even though I’m only getting 200 visitors a day, that’s success.

mandennis said:
No. but we can gradually get rid of media outlets that we don’t agree with by simply saying “not on taxpayers’ dime.” but where does Fox News gets its resources and still calls itself “fair and balanced?” Jon Stewart has a archive of how Fox news is living up to its “fair and balanced” tag line.

Or they can just, you know, not take taxpayer money and then say whatever the hell they want. Like Fox News and Jon Stewart both do.

mandennis said:
No. but we can gradually get rid of media outlets that we don’t agree with by simply saying “not on taxpayers’ dime.” but where does Fox News gets its resources and still calls itself “fair and balanced?” Jon Stewart has a archive of how Fox news is living up to its “fair and balanced” tag line.

We can get of media outlets that don’t receive any public money by saying “not on taxpayers’ dime” and you can find the truth of this at Comedy Central?

greg454 said:
So following NPR’s logic, I don’t need ratings to be successful. I could just say “my blog covers what matters” and even though I’m only getting 200 visitors a day, that’s success.

And you should get government funding for your blog because it’s so successful.

State run media is never a good thing. If they’re so good why do they need tax dollars to survive? Didn’t they already go bankrupt? Defund them and see how long they last.

BadGenome said:
Or they can just, you know, not take taxpayer money and then say whatever the hell they want. Like Fox News and Jon Stewart both do.

but … but that will make Jon Stewart “superior” to Fox news.

mandennis said:
but … but that will make Jon Stewart “superior” to Fox news.

what is this i don’t even

BadGenome said:
what is this i don’t even

I mean Jon Stewart is “superior” in catching the hypocrisy and bias of fox news, which he has an archive of.

mandennis said:
I mean Jon Stewart is “superior” in catching the hypocrisy and bias of fox news, which he has an archive of.

Superior to what? Has Fox News tried to archive Jon Stewart’s bias or something? I honestly don’t understand what you’re trying to say.

mandennis said:
I mean Jon Stewart is “superior” in catching the hypocrisy and bias of fox news, which he has an archive of.

With doctored tapes.

BadGenome said:
Superior to what? Has Fox News tried to archive Jon Stewart’s bias or something? I honestly don’t understand what you’re trying to say.

because Fox news has nothing on Jon Stewart to even start an archive.
look, you say you want no taxpayer funding of NPR and PBS, fine.
that will leave Fox news and the rest of media with their vested interests and whatever their slant is.
where does Jon Stewart fit here (in the absence or I would say subtle disposal of NPR and PBS)?
it’s Jon Stewart catching media (especially Fox news) in its bias, hypocrisy and absurdities.

Stewart is on the COMEDY CHANNEL, dude. He’s not news. He’s a freakin COMEDIAN.

Stewart being on the left has nothing to do with the way he ‘especially’ catches Fox News.

mandennis said:
because Fox news has nothing on Jon Stewart to even start an archive.
look, you say you want no taxpayer funding of NPR and PBS, fine.
that will leave Fox news and the rest of media with their vested interests and whatever their slant is.
where does Jon Stewart fit here (in the absence or I would say subtle disposal of NPR and PBS)?
it’s Jon Stewart catching media (especially Fox news) in its bias, hypocrisy and absurdities.

NPR and PBS also have a slant, and worse, they are slanted while taking taxpayer money. Even if NPR weren’t overwhelmingly liberal, there is still no way to justify someone who finds Garrison Keillor to be a detestably unfunny nutsack of a man being forced to pay one cent towards broadcasting his failing efforts to be a modern day Mark Twain.

So I don’t really see what you’re concerned about. No one wants to take your precious Jon Stewart away, and even NPR would survive without federal funding.

timzank said:
It most certainly is, the point being it’s HIS 3 cents…It doesn’t matter if it’s 3 million dollars or 3 cents, if you want to hear NPR or watch PBS then YOU pay for it. The amount is immaterial, the principle is priceless.

The irony is that the budget debate is focused on all the “3 cent” programs that the American taxpayer. It’s almost like they want us not to pay attention to the several hundred dollar program debates that need to happen. “They” in this case applies to politicians in this country. If the principle is indeed “priceless,” then imagine how much more important it is to focus on the programs that actually affect the budget and debt. Programs that are statistically shown to support those who are in groups who vote conservatively.

One point that could be made is that the restraint tied to public funding is what makes NPR a superior product. Rural NPR/PBS stations are the ones that get a much larger share of their funding from the federal government and have many locally based shows that reflect their community values. Let’s take KNPB for example: http://www.knpb.org/programming/local/ These communities are less likely to have clear reception of all broadcast affiliates, let alone access to cable and high speed internet. Having federal funds allows it to focus more on increasing access and less on profits. If buying one less military plane will give millions of people better access to information, then I am for it.

sure, NPR and PBS have a slant. it’s just people like Krauthammer and from fox news don’t like it, which led towards calls to defund NPR and PBS.
if you argue that not “one cent” should go to NPR and PBS whatever their slant is, boy you wished you were there to kill the proposal to start NPR and PBS or any public media decades ago. you mean like Macneil and Lehrer?
“precious Jon Stewart?” that’s precious.

So… no real answers for why if NPR and PBS are so great, why they need government funding.

Hmmm.

I do like the twisting, though…

They produce a superior product, which would be damaged if they took mainstream ad resources, despite the government only pay very little of their actual funding. Wait, what? You guys realize all that doesn’t make sense and more or less negates itself… right?

mandennis said:
if you argue that not “one cent” should go to NPR and PBS whatever their slant is

Yes, not one cent to any domestic media outlet, regardless of their viewpoint or media products. We have plenty of them and none of them need taxpayer money to function. If they aren’t self supporting, let them fail. If they’re good, they won’t.

Hey, Air America flew solo.

Yargburger said:
The irony is that the budget debate is focused on all the “3 cent” programs that the American taxpayer. It’s almost like they want us not to pay attention to the several hundred dollar program debates that need to happen. “They” in this case applies to politicians in this country. If the principle is indeed “priceless,” then imagine how much more important it is to focus on the programs that actually affect the budget and debt. Programs that are statistically shown to support those who are in groups who vote conservatively. One point that could be made is that the restraint tied to public funding is what makes NPR a superior product. Rural NPR/PBS stations are the ones that get a much larger share of their funding from the federal government and have many locally based shows that reflect their community values. Let’s take KNPB for example: http://www.knpb.org/programming/local/ These communities are less likely to have clear reception of all broadcast affiliates, let alone access to cable and high speed internet. Having federal funds allows it to focus more on increasing access and less on profits. If buying one less military plane will give millions of people better access to information, then I am for it.

You’re splitting hairs…cut ALL of it.

AND, If the people that WATCH KNPB like what they see, pony up a check and keep watching.

mandennis said:
sure, NPR and PBS have a slant. it’s just people like Krauthammer and from fox news don’t like it, which led towards calls to defund NPR and PBS.if you argue that not “one cent” should go to NPR and PBS whatever their slant is, boy you wished you were there to kill the proposal to start NPR and PBS or any public media decades ago. you mean like Macneil and Lehrer?“precious Jon Stewart?” that’s precious.

What part of “I don’t want to pay for your TV viewing” do you not understand? I don’t care what you like or dislike, watch what you want, but don’t send me the friggin’ bill ya leech.

timzank said:
What part of “I don’t want to pay for your TV viewing” do you not understand? I don’t care what you like or dislike, watch what you want, but don’t send me the friggin’ bill ya leech.

great, another of them tax cut loving teabaggers . “I don’t want to pay for your TV viewing,” but I have no problem with other people paying for my tax cuts. no hypocrisy here.

mandennis says:
March 13, 2011 at 1:21 pm mandennis(Quote)
Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

sure, NPR and PBS have a slant. it’s just people like Krauthammer and from fox news don’t like it, which led towards calls to defund NPR and PBS.
———

Uh, that has nothing to do with it. Not sure how you came up with that.

Not 1 public radio station in the lower 48 states needs to be subsidized.

You are done…no more tax money…Big Bird makes you a lot of money.

I can see subsidizing radio stations in Alaska where people are few and far between and there are no roads between the community.

An even better idea is to let Alaska mine and drill for their own natural resouces and they would be happy to pay for it themselves.

mandennis said:
great, another of them tax cut loving teabaggers . “I don’t want to pay for your TV viewing,” but I have no problem with other people paying for my tax cuts. no hypocrisy here.

Great, another of them nanny state-loving economic illiterates. You don’t have to pay for tax cuts, genius; you have to pay for spending.

Yargburger said:
Having federal funds allows it to focus more on increasing access and less on profits. If buying one less military plane will give millions of people better access to information, then I am for it.

OK. We could surely spend many millions and provide Fox News to people who don’t currently have it available to them. How much would you like to spend on that?

BatBoy said:
I can see subsidizing radio stations in Alaska where people are few and far between and there are no roads between the community.

Those are people who need satellite dishes, and I’m sure more than a few have them. The fact that people live in remote places does not entitle them to a right to information that the federal government is then required to provide. Rural living has it’s pros and cons.

mandennis said:
“I don’t want to pay for your TV viewing,” but I have no problem with other people paying for my tax cuts. no hypocrisy here.

Who paid for your Obama tax cut? You know, the one that used to be a Bush tax cut.

Pablo said:
Those are people who need satellite dishes, and I’m sure more than a few have them. The fact that people live in remote places does not entitle them to a right to information that the federal government is then required to provide. Rural living has it’s pros and cons.

The answer for these type people is REALLY simple. Freakin MOVE! LOL

writer said:
Stewart being on the left has nothing to do with the way he ‘especially’ catches Fox News.

The apoplectic Left accuses James O’Keefe of taking video clips out of context, but when they start giving out Pulitzer Prize’s for deceptive editing, Mr. Stewart will be a shoo-in for the award every year.

It’s not just about defunding CPB/NPR, it’s also about revoking their tax-exempt status so they can compete in the marketplace with all other broadcast networks. Continuing with tax-exemption means they still have access to taxpayer money that should have been remitted to the Treasury of the United States.

The Ivy League elitist attitudes of NPR employees that talk down to the unwashed members of the proletariat while taking their tax money is going to stop. The gravy train is over, and the liberal intelligentsia can learn how to run a business or perish. If you love NPR, write a check and support the democrat party. If not willing to write that check, you’re all hat and no cattle, just like so many in the privileged party of whiny, moaning aristocrat buffoons.

timzank said:
What part of “I don’t want to pay for your TV viewing” do you not understand? I don’t care what you like or dislike, watch what you want, but don’t send me the friggin’ bill ya leech.

Come on trolls! It’s Sunday, which means it’s time to play Political Madlibs!

Let’s take one of the most tired, asinine statements of false logic and fill in the blanks! Here goes:

What part of “I don’t want to pay for your_____________________” do you not understand? I don’t care what you like or dislike, __________________ you want, but don’t send me the friggin’ bill, ya leech.”

Group 1:

police
firefighters
bridge
highway
hydro-electric dam
air traffic controllers
food inspectors
drug testers
financial regulators
public education
illegal wars
tax breaks for millionaires
subsidies for oil companies and agribusiness
incentives to outsource jobs
pollution controls

Group 2:

arrest criminals how
protect your home how
cross the river any way
transport yourself however
create electricity the way
direct planes wherever
eat anything
ingest whatever
get scammed however
be as illiterate as
start your own private war if
live in a banana republic if
pay for their profits if
kill the economy if
destroy the environment if

it’s too bad that our public education system was dismantled under Reagan. Maybe if you trolls had taken civics classes, you would understand the part of the Constitution which talks about the “Commons.” It is the foundation that allowed us to become the greatest country on earth.

Without the Commons, there would be no “self-made” men, because there would be no stable government, no infrastructure, national defense, municipal services.

On the other hand, we would be doing just fine without some of the brilliant policies favored by the Republicans over the years. Unless you still believe there are WMD hidden in Syria, and Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Please let us know, and forward your post to your nearest mental institution – unless your Republican governor cut funding for that as well :)

BadGenome said:
Great, another of them nanny state-loving economic illiterates. You don’t have to pay for tax cuts, genius; you have to pay for spending.

“You don’t have to pay for tax cuts?”
if you have a $1 bill shared evenly by a household of 2 and then one of them decides to pay less (sort of like a tax cut), the other guy pays more than his usual share to fully cover the $1 bill.
if the other guy does not have the same amount as the tax cut, they run into a deficit and can always borrow (as in go into debt).
this is what is going on with the tax cuts for the rich and corporations as in hundreds of billions of unpaid tax cuts that the GOP racked up during the Bush years and wants to make permanent. This explains why since Reagan, national debt rose, which the GOP now want to cover with spending cuts on public institutions and services that have nothing to do with the indebtedness.
so, genius, it’s false to say that “You don’t have to pay for tax cuts.”

for spending”

mandennis said:
“You don’t have to pay for tax cuts?”
if you have a $1 bill shared evenly by a household of 2 and then one of them decides to pay less (sort of like a tax cut), the other guy pays more than his usual share to fully cover the $1 bill.
if the other guy does not have the same amount as the tax cut, they run into a deficit and can always borrow (as in go into debt).
this is what is going on with the tax cuts for the rich and corporations as in hundreds of billions of unpaid tax cuts that the GOP racked up during the Bush years and wants to make permanent. This explains why since Reagan, national debt rose, which the GOP now want to cover with spending cuts on public institutions and services that have nothing to do with the indebtedness.
so, genius, it’s false to say that “You don’t have to pay for tax cuts.”

for spending”

Cutting taxes doesn’t create debt. Spending money does. Obviously, if you’re taking in less revenue then you have to adjust your expenditures or else go into deficit spending, but I reject the premise that the government is somehow automatically entitled to X% of anyone’s money and anything less than that will have to be “paid for”.

I just love how liberals go to the greatest hits on the “tear jerk” meter when defending their position. If it’s budget cuts our children will starve at school in a classroom of 100. Our wives,mothers,grandmothers,and daughter will be raped and killed because all the police will be laid off, our homes will burn down because the fireman have been laid off and if we cut the public money to NPR thousands of cave dwellers, tree house residents, and hermits living in remote America will lose their 250 watt daytime radio station and will have to rely on the local witch doctor for information and to get their car fixed.

Public Broadcasting (NPR,PBS et al) serves a portion of the population that for-profit broadcasting ignores.
Clear Channel owns over 1000 stations. Many are not even manned. They provide no local service.
Networks used to lose money running news bureaus. It was considered a part of the obligation for the right to the airwaves. Then “60 Minutes” made money. The “Greed is Good!” boys of the ’80′s decided entertainment should no longer carry the news section. News had to pay.
Enter “happy news”, confrontational journos, the whole 20/20 sex-trap genre, and the opinion based news channels on cable.
NPR and the other outlets of Pub. Broadcasting allow people to get coverage you would otherwise never hear. With all the media outlets in NYC, only the NPR station covers the State Assembly when in session in Albany. That service is of benefit to the populace, but not profitatble for commercial broadcasting.
BG–When you cut taxes, you reduce revenue. You MUST then either 1) Remove expenditures from the budget equal to the tax cuts, or 2) Increase the debt. W & Co. did #2 on the economy, because, as Darth Cheney said, “Deficits don’t matter.” If you didn’t know that, you don’t know Dick.

BadGenome said:
Great, another of them nanny state-loving economic illiterates.

BadGenome said:
Cutting taxes doesn’t create debt. Spending money does. Obviously, if you’re taking in less revenue then you have to adjust your expenditures or else go into deficit spending, but I reject the premise that the government is somehow automatically entitled to X% of anyone’s money and anything less than that will have to be “paid for”.

Please refer to previous my post, and learn something about how this country functions. You might realize that there are a huge number of critical services provided by government.

Let’s see how things you despise might actually help you, assuming you are a small business owner, which is a vital part of the economy right?

Now I know you may not be a small business owner (and based on the intelligence of your posts, there’s a 90% probability you’re not), but since we all agree that small business creates more jobs than big corporations, we need to help this group, right?

If you own a small business, you would depend on public education to produce a literate, well-trained local workforce. Unlike multi-national corporations, you can’t afford to hire headhunters, set up bogus corporate headquarters in the Cayman Islands, or build factories in Mexico.

The same thing goes for having all the public services and infrastructure that allows us to protect our property, deliver products, have legal remedies when someone or some company cheats us, powers our business, insures that we don’t get poisoned or injured by faulty products we consume, etc.

So, as small business owners, we need a wide range of government provided goods and services.

In case you are unfamiliar with the term, economic literates refer to these benefits as utility. Now, how do you feel about drinking clean water and breathing air that doesn’t cause emphysema? Think that might be a good idea? So now, we get into a whole group of things that we as a society value. They don’t come with a price because these are necessity goods without which we cannot live.

Politics gets involved because the will of the voters indirectly affects which of those utilities represent the best interest of the largest number of people. Do we force motorcycle riders to wear helmets? Yes, because if some idiot has an accident the likelihood that he will suffer severe injuries and then be taken to an emergency room (funded by our tax dollars) is very high. Since most people agree that we shouldn’t pay massive health care costs for individuals who are taking unnecessary risks, we pass a law which penalizes this behavior so these idiots are less likely to do it. And we pay for police and highway patrol officers to enforce that law so the idiots comply with the law.

Are you starting to get any of this? I know you slept through your high school economics class. But there’s actually a real world use for understanding something besides beer and reality TV.

So, the question is, regardless of how any individual feels about specific uses of their tax money, how do we pay for all this stuff (90% of which we all agree we need)? Well, how about the good old free market system? If big corporations reap the benefits of the Commons, and have a stable, relatively wealth population to sell their stuff, shouldn’t they contribute their far share? Why is it that corporate profits have skyrocketed while the percentage of corporate tax revenue compared to total tax revenue has shrunk over the last 50 years?

The same thing goes for the millionaires in this country. If they benefit from government provided services to a greater degree than the common folk (you do know, for example, that our tax dollars pays for private airports, even though only a small percentage of our population owns or will ever fly in a private plane) should they not pay at least their fair share for these services?

So, to answer your original statement, the public does pay for tax cuts for the rich. We pay by being forced to decrease services that are deemed valuable to the best interests of the public. Just because there is a small minority of selfish, shortsighted people like you who don’t believe in the Commons, doesn’t mean our country as a whole will not suffer from the failed economic policies of supply side economics and libertarian rhetoric.

One last note: our massive debt is due to health care costs and defense spending, and nothing we cut from discretionary funding will address the problem. The numbers are public record. So this whole debate over NPR is just an idiotic partisan diversion that keeps people from thinking about how to deal with the real economic issues facing this country.

timzank said:
What part of “I don’t want to pay for your TV viewing” do you not understand? I don’t care what you like or dislike, watch what you want, but don’t send me the friggin’ bill ya leech.

I don’t want to pay for most wars, especially the preemptive types as in Iraq. I want all of my taxpayer dollars back that went into that war.

I say that any time a new war is started, every American registers to say whether or not he is for or against the war. If he is against it, then none of his taxes go to that war.

I don’t want to pay for oil company subsidies. Can I please get back all of my tax dollar money that has gone to subsidize oil companies?

timzank said:
What part of “I don’t want to pay for your TV viewing” do you not understand? I don’t care what you like or dislike, watch what you want, but don’t send me the friggin’ bill ya leech.

Oh, and by the way. I don’t want to pay for the healthcare for any republican in office. I don’t want to pay for the healthcare of any of the staff of republican politicians. I don’t want to pay for the pension of any republican in office or that of the republican’s staff. In fact, I don’t want to pay for the salaries of republican politicians.

You know, John Boehner was recently asked about his smoking habit. He didn’t want to talk about it and basically dismissed the question.

What happens if John Boehner gets a serious disease from smoking? I certainly do not want to pay for his treatment. And, I have to ask, if he does get a serious disease from smoking, where is his “personal responsibility” for getting this serious disease?

BruinAlum77 said:
Please refer to previous my post, and learn something about how this country functions. You might realize that there are a huge number of critical services provided by government.

Yeah, yeah. News flash for you, junior: we’ve long since moved from public roads, public hospitals, public police, public fire departments, and public schools (the last one being of fairly dubious usefulness) to public radio, public country music, public muppets, and public cowboy poets, Time to starve the beast.

Pablo said:
Yes, not one cent for oil companies. If they aren’t self supporting, let them fail. If they’re good, they won’t.

I just O’Keefe’d your quote to point out the obvious. I don’t want my taxes subsidizing oil companies or agribusiness. If THEY aren’t self supporting, let them fail. Sauce for the goose. And, THEY get a hell of a lot more than NPR.

Joseph Glackin said:
I just O’Keefe’d your quote to point out the obvious. I don’t want my taxes subsidizing oil companies or agribusiness. If THEY aren’t self supporting, let them fail. Sauce for the goose. And, THEY get a hell of a lot more than NPR.

Fine, elect enough Senators and Representatives to remove these subsidies. By the way, I don’t want these subsidized either.

Joseph Glackin said:
BG–When you cut taxes, you reduce revenue. You MUST then either 1) Remove expenditures from the budget equal to the tax cuts, or 2) Increase the debt. W & Co. did #2 on the economy, because, as Darth Cheney said, “Deficits don’t matter.” If you didn’t know that, you don’t know Dick.

I believe I said just that.

@ Zermatt

Not to spend too much time on an irrelevant point, but I assume you don’t want to pay for Obama’s HC either since he is also a smoker.

But your comparisons aren’t all that foolish. However, believing that the left didn’t try to defund and/or stop the Afghanistan/Iraq wars, you’re wrong. The situations are similar, with people and politicians protesting and arguing their points. The only difference is how well they pursuade the crowd. If NPR is defunded, it means the Republicans had the power, used it well, and convinced the people… the same with the wars. That’s politics, buddy.

Your comment about not paying for Republicans, however just shows what type of partisan you are, and how much you value (or don’t) different points of view.

It is precisely because NPR is superior that it has no commercial appeal and must, therefore, be subsidized. How will we rubes know what to think if we don’t have it spoon-fed to us in breathy tones by people much better than ourselves?

Wingo said:
It is precisely because NPR is superior that it has no commercial appeal and must, therefore, be subsidized. How will we rubes know what to think if we don’t have it spoon-fed to us in breathy tones by people much better than ourselves?

Sorry you have so little self esteem.

ImNotBlue said:
@ Zermatt Not to spend too much time on an irrelevant point, but I assume you don’t want to pay for Obama’s HC either since he is also a smoker. But your comparisons aren’t all that foolish. However, believing that the left didn’t try to defund and/or stop the Afghanistan/Iraq wars, you’re wrong. The situations are similar, with people and politicians protesting and arguing their points. The only difference is how well they pursuade the crowd. If NPR is defunded, it means the Republicans had the power, used it well, and convinced the people… the same with the wars. That’s politics, buddy. Your comment about not paying for Republicans, however just shows what type of partisan you are, and how much you value (or don’t) different points of view.

I may be partisan, but keep in mind that it is the Republican politicians who want to repeal Obama’s healthcare plan, not most of the Democrats. Because they want to repeal it and take it away from people, I think they should put their money where their mouth is and pay for healthcare themselves. Same with pensions (social security).

Personally, I pay for my own health insurance because I am self-employed. But where a repeal would greatly hurt me is in the area of pre-existing conditions, of which I have a couple. If republicans repeal Obama’s healthcare plan, I would be extremely upset with them, and that is why I really do not want to pay for any of their health insurance, something I have paid a lot of money into these past 10+ years. I could potentially lose my health insurance if republicans repeal Obama’s healthcare plan and that, my friend, is what a real “death panel” looks like.

One thing I find really unconsionable about Republicans wanting to repeal healthcare is that they have no plan of their own right now. I think they should outline what their plan is for the American people and explain point by point, with facts (not lies, like “death panels”) why their plan is better than Obama’s plan. They should do this before they even think of voting on repealing Obama’s healthcare plan.

I do think that your argument about how politicians convince the public, however, isn’t necessarily correct. The majority of people in Wisconsin said in recent polls that they did not want the rights of collective bargaining to be stripped from public employees. This was the case in a vast majority of Wisconsin voters, regardless if they were union or not; regardless of whether or not they liked unions.

Resistance Is Futile said:
NPR is funded largely from private organizations. The Tea Party is racist. You know what is said at parties and in our families when no black people are around. We should not be hypocritical about it. He is getting blasted because NPR seeks and tells the truth. People who like Fox News like propaganda.

I think your comment says far more about you (and YOUR family apparently) than whomever you’re directing it at.

ImNotBlue said:
@ Zermatt Not to spend too much time on an irrelevant point, but I assume you don’t want to pay for Obama’s HC either since he is also a smoker. But your comparisons aren’t all that foolish. However, believing that the left didn’t try to defund and/or stop the Afghanistan/Iraq wars, you’re wrong. The situations are similar, with people and politicians protesting and arguing their points. The only difference is how well they pursuade the crowd. If NPR is defunded, it means the Republicans had the power, used it well, and convinced the people… the same with the wars. That’s politics, buddy. Your comment about not paying for Republicans, however just shows what type of partisan you are, and how much you value (or don’t) different points of view.

Forgot to mention the wars.

Yes, I know Dems tried to defund and/or stop both wars. What I’m saying is, I don’t want any of my money going to any war, regardless if a Republican or Democrat president leads to that war, unless I feel that war is necessary. I remember the day Bush went into Afghanistan. I had just flown home from Europe, where I was working, for my sister’s wedding. I was staying at my brother’s house, having a few beers with him, when Bush came on TV and said he was going into Afghanistan. My brother and I just yelled, “Yeah……get them bastards.” That is pretty uncharacteristic for us, but we did feel that we should have gone after Al Qaeda. We didn’t see it as an all out, decade-long war that was just starting.

Having said that, after so many years in Afghanistan, we need to find a way out soon.

Also having said that, I never felt it was right to go into Iraq. Months before we went in, I was firing off emails to the likes of O’Reilly and Hannity telling them how wrong it was to go into Iraq. And then we did…..and look what happened. No WMDs; deaths of thousands of Americans and other nationalities, including hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis; billions of dollars of destruction; well over a trillion dollars of U.S. dollars, which Bush never put in the official budget (nor did he do so for Afghanistan)……and one reason the budget deficit looks as bad as it does now is because Obama has put these in the budget; also, another thing that didn’t happen in Iraq…..we are not getting the oil revenue people like Wolfowitz predicted.

skyfet said:
Don’t let me start with you. You are like an a woman that always return to an abusive husband/partner. I’m tired of embarrassing you Jeffery, go away. lol

LOL

Son, the only person you have embarrassed is yourself.

mibwilso said:
I think Nina Totenberg raises a fair point.

Her head is a point, son!

@ Zermatt

Well, the talking point about Republicans and healthcare has been used quite a lot… but it doesn’t really make it any more truthful. First off, there is a difference in your employer providing a perk of healthcare (which is what is happening for congressmen, the government is their employer), and the government issuing everyone healthcare via mandate. Second, there are issues with Obamacare that the right want to keep (such as the prexisting condition coverage), but do not need the entire Obamacare plan to do it. Thirdly, they have offered plans and ideas, all met with a turn of the back from the Democrats in power… that’s not really their fault, is it? Fourth, “death pannels” are a sad reality of socialized medicine, and present in virtually all countries with such coverage. Members of the Administration and various advisors have admitted as much, but much like the actual cost of Obamacare (which was just revised to show that it costs significantly more than originally sold for), we probably won’t get the “oh, by the way” until a little down the road.

Now, I’m not sure how you think a repeal will alter your current coverage, as very little of Obamacare has gone into effect yet, so I’m not sure what you’re currently crediting as being part of it.

Your Wisconsin example sounds good, but polls aren’t exactly the most reliable, and the real tests come in the form of elections. Most people were against Obamacare too… but here we are. It’s one of those, “elections have consequences” moments.

As for the wars, I understand your points, and I’m not going to re-debate the wars. And while I can see what YOU want, you have to understand there really are only three options for any of these situations: vote for people who do what you want them to do and protest for changes, learn to live with it, or leave. That’s the options of our democracy. So YOU don’t get to decide where your taxes go, but you do get to vote and protest to get what you want. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. And just because it works one time for the opposition, it doesn’t mean it will also work for your side. That’s democracy… you’re not always going to get your way.

Imnotblue: “you have to understand there really are only three options for any of these situations: vote for people who do what you want them to do and protest for changes, learn to live with it, or leave. That’s the options of our democracy.”

That was pretty much true up until last month. Now we have the new option “pick up your marbles and run away”, thanks to Wisconsin dems. They actually proved politicians can find new lows and new ways NOT to do their job.

I believe everyone should have healthcare, and I am perfectly willing to help pay for it. We are just about the only “civilized” and industrialized country that does not provide healthcare for all.

You may have your point about the government employing these politicians, and that’s different from the government mandating that all have health insurance, but I don’t think that makes any difference. We in effect help pay for the uninsured when they go to emergency rooms and cannot pay for their treatments. I truly believe it is a moral duty for us to help provide health insurance for all.

And, while I may be wrong, I do not believe Republicans want to keep the pre-existing condition. I think they want to have some sort of “high-risk” pool, perhaps, and that is unacceptable, particularly to me because, again, I have paid an awful lot of money into my own health insurance over the years, and if my health insurance eventually says I cannot have their insurance and have to go into some kind of “high-risk” pool, that means I will be paying even much more than I am now.

Republicans have offered plans, and Democrats have accepted some of them. One of the very first things Democrats gave up was the public option. If the Democrats haven’t accepted any of the Republican’s plans, why did the healthcare debate drag on for so long? It’s because there were numerous changes over time. Besides, you very often hear that the Democratic healthcare plan is very similar to what Republicans have proposed in the past. I really believe that Republicans need to show a complete plan, a plan that would be voted on, before they further try to repeal the current plan. From what we saw in Wisconsin, you cannot trust Republicans. Republicans there said that collective bargaining was a fiscal issue, but then they later claimed it wasn’t…..that’s how they were able to separate it out and vote on eliminating it in a separate bill. They lied. How do we know that the Republicans in the U.S. Congress will even bring up a new health care plan if they first repeal the current plan? I don’t trust them.

When you say that “death panels” are a “sad reality of socialized medicine,” I have to say two things. First, by you saying this, that tells me you are extremely partisan, because it is not true. Second, I lived and worked in “socialist” Europe for 4 years. I had to go to the doctor twice for minor issues. I got in to see a doctor the same day I needed to. The government did not tell me what doctor to go to. My admin recommended a doctor in each case, depending upon what my health issue was. In one case, the doctor prescribed me medication which I was able to get the same day. In the other case, the doctor told me to pick up some over the counter medication which, by the way, you cannot get here in the states…..and it worked.

I knew one European who had type I diabetes. She did not take good care of herself (liked to drink and party and eat the wrong foods). Twice in the four years I was there, she had to be hospitalized. She got right into the hospital. She got treated, in spite of the fact that it was her fault that she aggravated her diabetes situation. She was made much better, and got out in a couple of days. Her only complaint about the health care system is that she could not get a private room, but I will tell you that I’ve known people in this country who cannot get a private room.

I knew another elderly European who had a mild stroke. She got right into the hospital. They treated her, even though she was elderly. She got out in a few days.

It is not a “reality” that socialized medicine has “death panels.” You do not know what you are talking about.

As far as I know, the pre-existing conditions clause has gone into effect. But even if it hasn’t, if Republicans eventually repeal it, say, when that clause does go into effect, I possibly could be affected. As I get older, my conditions may get worse, and I may see a doctor more often, costing my insurance company more money. That’s why I am concerned about this.

And, by the way, just the fact that you use the term “Obamacare” also tells me that you are extremely partisan.

You say that “elections” have consequences, so why did the Republicans drag out health care reform for so long? Obama was overwhelmingly elected, as were other Democrats. But Republicans lied (I’ll cite “death panels” again) and used every tactic they could to drag out health care reform. Obama ran on healthcare reform, so it should have been passed very quickly, not dragged out for so long so Republicans could distort what it is all about. The last congress was fillibustered (or threatened by fillibusters) more than any other congress in history, by Republicans. That’s not right to have a super majority in so many cases in order to pass a bill.

As for the war, I am only saying that partially tongue-in-cheek. I was absolutely outraged by what Bush did in Iraq, and while I wish I could withhold my taxes from any war like that, I know this is impossible.

ImNotBlue said:
@ Zermatt Well, the talking point about Republicans and healthcare has been used quite a lot… but it doesn’t really make it any more truthful. First off, there is a difference in your employer providing a perk of healthcare (which is what is happening for congressmen, the government is their employer), and the government issuing everyone healthcare via mandate. Second, there are issues with Obamacare that the right want to keep (such as the prexisting condition coverage), but do not need the entire Obamacare plan to do it. Thirdly, they have offered plans and ideas, all met with a turn of the back from the Democrats in power… that’s not really their fault, is it? Fourth, “death pannels” are a sad reality of socialized medicine, and present in virtually all countries with such coverage. Members of the Administration and various advisors have admitted as much, but much like the actual cost of Obamacare (which was just revised to show that it costs significantly more than originally sold for), we probably won’t get the “oh, by the way” until a little down the road. Now, I’m not sure how you think a repeal will alter your current coverage, as very little of Obamacare has gone into effect yet, so I’m not sure what you’re currently crediting as being part of it. Your Wisconsin example sounds good, but polls aren’t exactly the most reliable, and the real tests come in the form of elections. Most people were against Obamacare too… but here we are. It’s one of those, “elections have consequences” moments. As for the wars, I understand your points, and I’m not going to re-debate the wars. And while I can see what YOU want, you have to understand there really are only three options for any of these situations: vote for people who do what you want them to do and protest for changes, learn to live with it, or leave. That’s the options of our democracy. So YOU don’t get to decide where your taxes go, but you do get to vote and protest to get what you want. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. And just because it works one time for the opposition, it doesn’t mean it will also work for your side. That’s democracy… you’re not always going to get your way.

Forgot to hit “quote”. See my response above.

I’ve been saying the same thing for years Dr. Krauthammer.

I realize Charles is known as quite an intellectual and I don’t know how old he is but if he is old
enough to understand how things used to be before easy money from other people, insurance companies, government contracts, captive customers and credit from all sources. When pay as you go was the order of the day, people had respect, honor and fair play. Today with easy money everyone is looking for a fund or object to rape in the name of a good business venture and it is not always a Democrat, you would be surprised at just how many Republicans are involved… There are more warped minds in profiteering than there are stars in the skies. Why is it when we find a system as good as Capitalism, some try to turn it into a gangster venture, is it because mothers, since the early 1950′s had to find work outside the home to supplement her husband’s income for survival, therefore neglecting to teach her children good moral standards to live by? There must be a reason for this dog eats dog activity American is headed towards. Many young people today don’t remember how businesses making products for the military, raped our government financially by overcharging millions, if not billions continually for military products from screw drivers to nuts and bolts. We have just gone through 10 years of wars with zillions of purchases by our Federal Government. I bet if we go back and check the invoices we will find the same overcharges that made some businesses very rich and helped put our government in today’s financial hole. Overcharges and false claims in Medicare and Social Security are giving these two programs a bad name. I believe both of these funds are being intentionally and continually raped to make everyone believe they are bad programs. Industry hates paying their share into any programs like these. This is gangster capitalism at its worst.
I think our government needs an agency just to stop theft and corruption in every transaction.

Charles is totally right, if they are so great then take away their half billion dollar a year baby bottle and see if they live or die. That is what the marketplace is all about, of course libs have a zero understanding of the marketplace.

Cause it shouldn’t need big corporate doners to contribute to get their agenda on NPR. I’m sure everyone know what network does this and for who the Brothers on they do it for.

Krauthammer is angry at the world. I guess you would be too, had you been beaten with an Ugly Stick.

BadGenome said:
Time to starve the beast.

Okay, gramps, not only did you sleep through economics class, you must have missed grade school arithmetic. You are focused on partisan cuts (estimated at $61B) that will total less money than the Republicans have added to the deficit with their insistence of tax cuts for millionaires ($70B per year).

In addition, these courageous spending cuts account for 1.6% of total federal spending. It is 4% of the budget deficit projected for 2011 by the CBO.

So, please focus on cutting critical public investments in flood control, renewable energy, revenue collection, law enforcement, environmental protection, womens’ health, and disease control.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/02/09/house-gop-spending-cuts-the-list/

Let’s continue to avoid the big issues, which are military spending, health care costs, and debt service on the massive debts created by Reagan and Bush. Oh wait, the Republicans don’t want to address the big issues until after the 2012 election, as if their courage will be rewarded in the polls.

By the way, your willful ignorance does more to prove my point about the importance of good public education than anything I could possibly say. Well done.

BruinAlum77 said:
Okay, gramps, not only did you sleep through economics class, you must have missed grade school arithmetic. You are focused on partisan cuts (estimated at $61B) that will total less money than the Republicans have added to the deficit with their insistence of tax cuts for millionaires ($70B per year).

In addition, these courageous spending cuts account for 1.6% of total federal spending. It is 4% of the budget deficit projected for 2011 by the CBO.

So, please focus on cutting critical public investments in flood control, renewable energy, revenue collection, law enforcement, environmental protection, womens’ health, and disease control.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/02/09/house-gop-spending-cuts-the-list/

Let’s continue to avoid the big issues, which are military spending, health care costs, and debt service on the massive debts created by Reagan and Bush. Oh wait, the Republicans don’t want to address the big issues until after the 2012 election, as if their courage will be rewarded in the polls.

By the way, your willful ignorance does more to prove my point about the importance of good public education than anything I could possibly say. Well done.

In case you missed it, this thread is not about the military or entitlements. It’s about NPR, which you seem to be arguing is just as much a necessity as roads and police. “Oh! But but but but the Commons!” What a ridiculous dumbshit you are.

I’m not much of a fan of the Republicans (to say the least), but if you weren’t on Obama’s nuts you’d at least admit the problems isn’t “Bush’s and Reagan’s debts” but Obama’s titanic, record-shattering debt as well. Oh, but he’s doing such a fantastic job of showing real leadership! He took a good, hard look at the budget problems and decided what really needed to be done was to spend even more money that we don’t have on NPR! Smartest man in the room, indeed!

So, yeah. I wouldn’t exactly hold my breath waiting for the Dems to get serious on entitlement reform, either. Both parties are total pussies on this, so they’ll have to work it out behind the scenes and come out in tandem so that the other side can’t demagogue the issue. Also, you can eat my butt.

NPR is a walking corpse that doesnt realize that its dead. NPR and its inbred cousin Air America are both subsidized heavily by government ie taxpayer money. They produce an inferior product and as a result people do not want to have anything to do with them. Its called the free market.

Marc Wilks said:
NPR is a walking corpse that doesnt realize that its dead. NPR and its inbred cousin Air America are both subsidized heavily by government ie taxpayer money. They produce an inferior product and as a result people do not want to have anything to do with them. Its called the free market.

Though they did steal roughly a million dollars from a Boys & Girls Club in the Bronx, Air America never received taxpayer money as far as I know. And since they’re now gratefully dead, they’re probably not stealing money from anyone – neither taxpayers nor children – anymore.

BadGenome said:
Though they did steal roughly a million dollars from a Boys & Girls Club in the Bronx, Air America never received taxpayer money as far as I know. And since they’re now gratefully dead, they’re probably not stealing money from anyone – neither taxpayers nor children – anymore.

Sounds like you’ve taken too many shots to the head and need to retire from the ring. Your buddy Glenn Beck has demonized NPR since he needed another target to ramp up your anxiety. It seems to have worked. NPR is just another corporate sponsored outlet that parrots whatever corporate talking head spews out for the edification of those who aren’t paying too much attention as they drive to or from work. The flap over the t-baggers is just another way those really in charge use to divide the masses of proles. And you fell for it.

Marc Wilks said:
NPR is a walking corpse that doesnt realize that its dead. NPR and its inbred cousin Air America are both subsidized heavily by government ie taxpayer money. They produce an inferior product and as a result people do not want to have anything to do with them. Its called the free market.

Air America never did take money from the U.S. government. And, they went off the air well over a year ago.

Audiamus said:
Sounds like you’ve taken too many shots to the head and need to retire from the ring. Your buddy Glenn Beck has demonized NPR since he needed another target to ramp up your anxiety. It seems to have worked. NPR is just another corporate sponsored outlet that parrots whatever corporate talking head spews out for the edification of those who aren’t paying too much attention as they drive to or from work. The flap over the t-baggers is just another way those really in charge use to divide the masses of proles. And you fell for it.

And since I was talking about Air America and didn’t mention NPR once, it sounds like you need to take a remedial reading class, huh?

BadGenome said:
In case you missed it, this thread is not about the military or entitlements. It’s about NPR, which you seem to be arguing is just as much a necessity as roads and police. “Oh! But but but but the Commons!” What a ridiculous dumbshit you are. I’m not much of a fan of the Republicans (to say the least), but if you weren’t on Obama’s nuts you’d at least admit the problems isn’t “Bush’s and Reagan’s debts” but Obama’s titanic, record-shattering debt as well. Oh, but he’s doing such a fantastic job of showing real leadership! He took a good, hard look at the budget problems and decided what really needed to be done was to spend even more money that we don’t have on NPR! Smartest man in the room, indeed! So, yeah. I wouldn’t exactly hold my breath waiting for the Dems to get serious on entitlement reform, either. Both parties are total pussies on this, so they’ll have to work it out behind the scenes and come out in tandem so that the other side can’t demagogue the issue. Also, you can eat my butt.

My, my. What a potty mouth we have here.

It is also Bush’s debts. We have spent a couple of trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the thing is, Bush did not put this spending on the books. Obama has now put these on the official budget deficit list, which is one reason why the budget deficit all of a sudden has looked as bad as it is since Obama took office.

You could say it is Reagan’s debt indirectly because of his push for lower taxes. Although I do want to mention that Reagan did raise taxes a number of times while in office. But Bush lowered taxes on the wealthy by 3 points (39% to 36%), using Reagan’s flawed theory of trickle down economics. It did not work under Bush’s reign.

Note that during Clinton’s years, while the highest tax bracket was 39%, 23 million new jobs were created. I don’t remember the exact figures under Bush’s 8 years, but it was substantially less than this….I want to say something like 2 or 3 million at most.

Analyses have been done which indicate that if Bush did not lower that top tax rate by 3 points, we would not be in the economic mess we are in.

Yes, Obama has added to the deficit. But he did what he thought was right…..try to stimulate the economy. And I truly believe that had he not done so, our unemployment figures and economic situation would be far worse than it is now. Look at the data. During Bush’s last year in office, the job loss figures increased dramatically month by month until the last month or so of his reign, we were losing well over 700,000 jobs a month. Shortly after Obama took office (after the stimulus was passed), job loss figures completely reversed. They were never as high as they were in Bush’s last couple of months.

As far as NPR is concerned, slashing funding to them and PBS is absolute peanuts. It will not help our budget deficit situation one single bit. I’ve been responsible for somewhat large budgets (tens of millions and even hundreds of millions of dollars). Every year when we created a budget, we were told to cut it by substantial amounts. We did, but we never took out the “peanuts” in the budget, including things like training and travel. Things such as these made absolutely no dent in reducing our budgets and were considered critical to the ongoing functioning of our business.

Zermatt2 said:
As far as NPR is concerned, slashing funding to them and PBS is absolute peanuts. It will not help our budget deficit situation one single bit. I’ve been responsible for somewhat large budgets (tens of millions and even hundreds of millions of dollars). Every year when we created a budget, we were told to cut it by substantial amounts. We did, but we never took out the “peanuts” in the budget, including things like training and travel. Things such as these made absolutely no dent in reducing our budgets and were considered critical to the ongoing functioning of our business.

Of course our budget crisis is much, much larger than all non-defense domestic discretionary spending. I’d like you or BruinAlum77 (a reference to the Famous Fighting Bruins of Dumbass Academy, presumably) to point out where I have said otherwise. But what exactly is the argument against cutting NPR loose? Bruin’s seems to be, “I like NPR! It is like police departments! Derp!” Yours is not a whole lot better. Both expenditures may be relative “peanuts” but training and travel, as you acknowledge, are critical investments; NPR is not.

And sure, Obama believed the stimulus was the right thing to do. That’s not a surprise. He always seems to believe that more government spending is the right thing to do. Bush also racked up tons of debt doing what he believed to be the right thing, but the nation isn’t any less worse off for it because the guy is able to sleep soundly at night.

BadGenome said:
Of course our budget crisis is much, much larger than all non-defense domestic discretionary spending. I’d like you or BruinAlum77 (a reference to the Famous Fighting Bruins of Dumbass Academy, presumably) to point out where I have said otherwise. But what exactly is the argument against cutting NPR loose? Bruin’s seems to be, “I like NPR! It is like police departments! Derp!” Yours is not a whole lot better. Both expenditures may be relative “peanuts” but training and travel, as you acknowledge, are critical investments; NPR is not. And sure, Obama believed the stimulus was the right thing to do. That’s not a surprise. He always seems to believe that more government spending is the right thing to do. Bush also racked up tons of debt doing what he believed to be the right thing, but the nation isn’t any less worse off for it because the guy is able to sleep soundly at night.

The way we eventually got out of the Great Depression was WWII. Many were put to work in the military, manufacturing things for the war effort, and in general, working for the war effort. How was this paid for? By very high taxes on the wealthiest in this country. The highest federal income tax rate for the wealthiest in this country was over 90%, and very high tax rates continued years after WWII. We had a lot of growth in those years after WWII. I really believe that we will not get out of this economic mess, even with cuts to entitlements and the military, unless we raise taxes.

As far as NPR is concerned, don’t take this the wrong way, but I think that if NPR/PBS goes under, that would be contributing to the “dumbing down” of America. Our education system is in trouble. We are nowhere near the top in education, math and science, and the like compared to the rest of the world. We blame the teachers and unions, but this is far from the truth. I have not seen any data which would indicate that a high percentage of our teachers are “bad teachers.” I am convinced that much of the education problem lies in something else, perhaps parents as well as the economic conditions and crime in inner cities.

In spite of what many people believe, NPR’s actual news reporting (that which is on the hour, every hour) is some of the most unbiased you will find anywhere. You also do not hear the “fluff” that you hear on other networks. How many times have you heard stories about Charlie Sheen on these other networks? I haven’t heard any stories about Charlie Sheen on NPR. There might be some, but I seriously doubt it is anywhere near the coverage we hear on other stations.

I don’t listen to their programming 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, but much of what I hear includes programs which have both liberals and conservatives making their points about an issue. They do not yell and scream at each other, something typical of what you might see on cable news.

I think NPR and PBS provide a very valuable service to the public, including educating the public on issues. The people they have on to discuss topics (again, liberals and conservatives) are often experts in their field. They very often are people you do not see or hear on other networks.

I know Republicans/conservatives listen to NPR. I heard over the weekend that Tucker Carlson does, and he gives money to them. A very good Republican friend of mine has two kids who are now teenagers. When those kids were young, they loved Sesame Street…..Big Bird, Elmo.

The fact is, some if not many of the people who listen to NPR or watch PBS, cannot afford to give significant money to them to keep them afloat. Sure, their taxes now are paying to help them, but I think the total yearly budget the government gives them is something on the order of $400M a year. That’s a little over a dollar per person per year.

So this is why I am in favor of the government helping to pay a small percentage of NPR and PBS.

Reagan created more debt than all previous Presidents combined. He did it to pay off his multimillionaire backers, (max. rate cut from 70% to 35%), and to prove his “voodoo” economics theories.
Bush II created more debt than all previous Presidents combined. He did it to pay of his multimillionaire backers (notice a trend here?) with two tax cuts NOT matched to spending cuts, and two wars of choice that were run out-side of the budget (“off the books”).
Obama inherited an economy losing 800,000 jobs a MONTH. He has used deficit spending, as has every pres. during times of war or financial crisis. He has NOT raised taxes. He HAS created more jobs in this crisis than W did in eight years.
@genome– Your butt doesn’t seem very tasty. But one of my hogs would love to have you as his bunkmate.

Zermatt2 said:
The way we eventually got out of the Great Depression was WWII. Many were put to work in the military, manufacturing things for the war effort, and in general, working for the war effort. How was this paid for? By very high taxes on the wealthiest in this country. The highest federal income tax rate for the wealthiest in this country was over 90%, and very high tax rates continued years after WWII. We had a lot of growth in those years after WWII. I really believe that we will not get out of this economic mess, even with cuts to entitlements and the military, unless we raise taxes.

I think NPR and PBS provide a very valuable service to the public, including educating the public on issues. The people they have on to discuss topics (again, liberals and conservatives) are often experts in their field. They very often are people you do not see or hear on other networks.

*snip*

I know Republicans/conservatives listen to NPR. I heard over the weekend that Tucker Carlson does, and he gives money to them. A very good Republican friend of mine has two kids who are now teenagers. When those kids were young, they loved Sesame Street…..Big Bird, Elmo.

The fact that the rest of the world was destroyed either by WWII or by communism had a lot to do with America experiencing such runaway growth during that time. Needless to say, over 60 years of relative peace and the phenomenon of globalization has changed that.

Your reasoning regarding public broadcasting seems a little arbitrary to me. Like your friend’s kids I, too, grew up on iconic PBS muppets like Oscar, Cookie Monster, and Bill Moyers. But I also grew up watching G.I. Joe and the Transformers. Those cartoons were like high art compared to the mindless garbage kids watch today, both aesthetically and in terms of content. G.I. Joe taught me not to swim on a full stomach or play around downed power lines, and even the biggest Sesame Street booster must admit that Optimus Prime is a way better role model for kids than that little fruit Grover or an acid freak giant bird who hallucinates about a woolly mammoth all the time. So, would it be cool if the feds subsidize that stuff, too, so that the children can watch new Transformers unmolested by Michael Bay? (The Transformers, that is. Though I’m sure kids would appreciate not being molested by Michael Bay, as well. Hey, that’s another thing we can subsidize.)

BadGenome said:
The fact that the rest of the world was destroyed either by WWII or by communism had a lot to do with America experiencing such runaway growth during that time. Needless to say, over 60 years of relative peace and the phenomenon of globalization has changed that. Your reasoning regarding public broadcasting seems a little arbitrary to me. Like your friend’s kids I, too, grew up on iconic PBS muppets like Oscar, Cookie Monster, and Bill Moyers. But I also grew up watching G.I. Joe and the Transformers. Those cartoons were like high art compared to the mindless garbage kids watch today, both aesthetically and in terms of content. G.I. Joe taught me not to swim on a full stomach or play around downed power lines, and even the biggest Sesame Street booster must admit that Optimus Prime is a way better role model for kids than that little fruit Grover or an acid freak giant bird who hallucinates about a woolly mammoth all the time. So, would it be cool if the feds subsidize that stuff, too, so that the children can watch new Transformers unmolested by Michael Bay? (The Transformers, that is. Though I’m sure kids would appreciate not being molested by Michael Bay, as well. Hey, that’s another thing we can subsidize.)

Yes, much of the world was destroyed by WWII, but the Marshall Plan stopped in 1951. The U.S. funded the Marhsall Plan, and it should be noted that the Soviets did not accept the help. High tax rates continued throughout the 1950s and 1960s, and even into the 1970s, yet we still have high growth during this period. I’m not advocating anywhere near the high tax rates during this period, but I’ll have to once again say that all Obama was asking for last year was a bump of 3 points on the highest wage earners from 36 to 39%.

My reasoning is not arbitrary. I hope you’re not serious about Optimus Prime…..never seen OP, but from what I know about the Transformers, they use weapons, and I do not approve of kids watching shows with this type of violence, even if it is only a cartoon (I may be wrong, but that’s just my impression.)

But Sesame Street is not the only reason I pointed out. I do feel strongly that it is a public service NPR and PBS provide when they have programs like the PBS News House with Jim Lehrer as well as David Brooks and Mark Shields program where they debate topics. With all of the cultural, educational, and informative news and other programs NPR and PBS have, I liken them to the Smithsonian Institution of media. Do people who want to completely defund NPR and PBS also want to completely defund the Smithsonian Institution, our national museums?

“That little fruit Grover or an acid freak giant bird…..??????” Come on, give me a break.

Zermatt2 said:
My reasoning is not arbitrary. I hope you’re not serious about Optimus Prime…..never seen OP, but from what I know about the Transformers, they use weapons, and I do not approve of kids watching shows with this type of violence, even if it is only a cartoon (I may be wrong, but that’s just my impression.)

I see. I guess it would be wrong to force people who feel that way to subsidize such a thing.

BadGenome said:
I see. I guess it would be wrong to force people who feel that way to subsidize such a thing.

Not quite sure what you are saying. Are you saying that you really feel that Grover is a “fruit” and Big Bird is an “acid freak?” You apparently liked Sesame Street when you were young.

I actually made fun of Sesame Street when I was a teenager. Now I think it’s great. As mentioned, my Republican friends kids loved it when they were young. My two sisters have young kids who love that show.

And, again, Sesame Street really is not my major reason for wanting to fund NPR and PBS, but it makes up a part of it.

BadGenome said:
I see. I guess it would be wrong to force people who feel that way to subsidize such a thing.

And, to follow up. I’m curious about what you think about the Smithsonian. I am quite sure there are many, many people who have never been to the Smithsonian and never will get there. Should we completely defund the Smithsonian? This gets back to my view that completely defunding NPR and PBS will add to the “dumbing down” of America. Like the Smithsonian, I really believe NPR and PBS provide very good educational material for the American public. I learn things from NPR in particular that I would not have learned from Fox or CNN or MSNBC or any of the other networks. This includes national, international, and even local news.

Zermatt2 said:
Not quite sure what you are saying. Are you saying that you really feel that Grover is a “fruit” and Big Bird is an “acid freak?” You apparently liked Sesame Street when you were young.

I actually made fun of Sesame Street when I was a teenager. Now I think it’s great. As mentioned, my Republican friends kids loved it when they were young. My two sisters have young kids who love that show.

And, again, Sesame Street really is not my major reason for wanting to fund NPR and PBS, but it makes up a part of it.

Nah, I was just kidding about that stuff. I do think it’s morally reprehensible to teach kids that Garrison Keillor is funny or Bill Moyers is a journalist, though.

BadGenome said:
Nah, I was just kidding about that stuff. I do think it’s morally reprehensible to teach kids that Garrison Keillor is funny or Bill Moyers is a journalist, though.

Still curious about your thoughts on the Smithsonian. And while I’m at it, how do you feel about the government funding any museum or the arts? Should it all go away? I’m sure some feel this way, and that is sad.

By the lack of your answer, though, I almost take it that you think the government should help fund the Smithsonian, so if that’s the case, should the government also fund NASCAR or the Indy 500?

I don’t have any kids, so why should I want to pay any taxes to fund public schools? I actually do want to pay taxes to fund public schools; every time a ballot issue comes up asking whether or not to increase taxes for my local schools, I vote “yes.”

I work out of my home and very seldomly drive a car. Why should I want to pay taxes to maintain the streets? If they fall into disrepair, so what? I can work around that since I don’t drive that often.

I’ve never had cancer and hope I never get it; my family does not have a history of cancer. So why should I fund medical research that looks to find a cure for cancer? If I eventually get it, oh, well. I’ve lived a long, happy life so far.

Yes, these are more extreme examples, but how far do you take it?

Zermatt2 said:
Still curious about your thoughts on the Smithsonian. And while I’m at it, how do you feel about the government funding any museum or the arts? Should it all go away? I’m sure some feel this way, and that is sad.

It’s true that I’m more willing to suffer federal funding for the Smithsonian or medical research than I am for utter wastes like, say, farm subsidies, NPR/PBS, or cowboy poets. Ideally, I suppose I’d cut all of that, but the former are certainly near the very bottom of my list.

But I guess I disagree with the idea that these things would simply “go away” without the federal government. That evil teabagger David Koch alone has given the Smithsonian millions, including $15 million just for an exhibition on human evolution (a fact that amuses me greatly since he’s always painted as a stereotypical right wing whackjob). People who see the value in these things will keep them going with or without the feds.

BadGenome said:
It’s true that I’m more willing to suffer federal funding for the Smithsonian or medical research than I am for utter wastes like, say, farm subsidies, NPR/PBS, or cowboy poets. Ideally, I suppose I’d cut all of that, but the former are certainly near the very bottom of my list. But I guess I disagree with the idea that these things would simply “go away” without the federal government. That evil teabagger David Koch alone has given the Smithsonian millions, including $15 million just for an exhibition on human evolution (a fact that amuses me greatly since he’s always painted as a stereotypical right wing whackjob). People who see the value in these things will keep them going with or without the feds.

I’m glad you feel that way about the Smithsonian (and medical research). I simply disagree, however, that NPR and PBS are “utter wastes.”

I know that the Koch brothers are philanthropists, but I do think some aspects of them are “evil.” I think the Citizens United ruling was very wrong. We’re getting closer and closer to corporations running this country, not individuals…..and the Koch brothers want this to happen. I am very concerned about the environmental regulations these guys want to make go away. I haven’t dug into it, yet, but there was something in that Wisconsin bill the republicans rammed through last week about letting corporations develop wetlands in Wisconsin without the typical regulations required (and why was something such as this even in this bill?).

Just because one may be a philanthropist, that should not give license to one to pollute the air we breathe or the water we drink.

You may be right that someone would fill in to fund NPR and PBS, but we don’t know that. There are frequent reports nowadays that charities are hurting because people are not giving as much as they used to. I didn’t give as much last year to my favorite charities as I usually give.

Zermatt2 said:
I know that the Koch brothers are philanthropists, but I do think some aspects of them are “evil.” I think the Citizens United ruling was very wrong. We’re getting closer and closer to corporations running this country, not individuals…..and the Koch brothers want this to happen. I am very concerned about the environmental regulations these guys want to make go away. I haven’t dug into it, yet, but there was something in that Wisconsin bill the republicans rammed through last week about letting corporations develop wetlands in Wisconsin without the typical regulations required (and why was something such as this even in this bill?).

Regarding the Citizens United case, I find the proposition of unbridled corporate or union spending much less concerning than the government’s argument that it has the right to ban books. Like, infinitely so. Shouldn’t Meg Whitman’s failed candidacy put an end to the idea that one can simply buy an election, anyway?

I don’t know anything about the wetland development business, but it wouldn’t surprise me. I hate omnibus bills so much, and would really love to see state and federal legislatures establish rules preventing things that aren’t germane from being attached to legislation like that.

BadGenome said:
Regarding the Citizens United case, I find the proposition of unbridled corporate or union spending much less concerning than the government’s argument that it has the right to ban books. Like, infinitely so. Shouldn’t Meg Whitman’s failed candidacy put an end to the idea that one can simply buy an election, anyway? I don’t know anything about the wetland development business, but it wouldn’t surprise me. I hate omnibus bills so much, and would really love to see state and federal legislatures establish rules preventing things that aren’t germane from being attached to legislation like that.

I don’t know of any instance where the government has proposed banning books, although I know there were stories about Palin doing so while mayor of Wasila (I think she denies this, though).

No, Meg Whitman’s failed candidacy does not put an end to that idea. First, she was an individual, yes, with a lot of money. But the possibility of corporations buying elections I believe is quite high, especially when there are multiple corporations banding together. Corporations have far more money than most individuals. They can buy elections; they can buy lobbyists; they can buy advertising; they can fund front groups. If you don’t see a danger in this, then why are corporations not allowed to keep secret their political donations? I’d like to know what major corporations are donating and how much and to whom for two reasons. First, if that corporation is donating to a politician I do not like, I might boycott that corporation’s products, exercising my rights in this country.

Secondly, if a particular corporation is donating to a particular politician, that would perhaps tell me why a particular politician is voting on a particular issue……to support that corporation’s point of view. I cannot follow all issues in great detail, but the reasons why a particular politician votes for something tells me a lot.

I am still very interested in learning more about the fact that Clarence Thomas and I believe Antonin Scalia attended past years’ Koch brothers “secret” meetings.

BadGenome said:
Regarding the Citizens United case, I find the proposition of unbridled corporate or union spending much less concerning than the government’s argument that it has the right to ban books. Like, infinitely so. Shouldn’t Meg Whitman’s failed candidacy put an end to the idea that one can simply buy an election, anyway? I don’t know anything about the wetland development business, but it wouldn’t surprise me. I hate omnibus bills so much, and would really love to see state and federal legislatures establish rules preventing things that aren’t germane from being attached to legislation like that.

“If you don’t see a danger in this, then why are corporations not allowed to keep secret their political donations?”

Oops, i meant to say “NOW”, not “NOT” allowed.

Zermatt2 said:
I don’t know of any instance where the government has proposed banning books, although I know there were stories about Palin doing so while mayor of Wasila (I think she denies this, though).

That was precisely what the government argued in the Citizens United case, though. (Funnily enough, it was current Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan and her then-deputy Malcolm Stewart who were arguing this.) There seems to be a lot of misinformation – pushed in part by the president himself – floating around as to just what the court’s ruling in Citizens United vs. FEC means, but measures like disclosure rules and the bans against direct contributions and foreign donations were explicitly upheld in the decision. It’s not that I’m completely unconcerned about such things, either, but the fact that the feds were arguing that they actually have the right to stop a book’s publication if it is too close to an election means to me that they should have lost, hands down.

BadGenome said:
That was precisely what the government argued in the Citizens United case, though. (Funnily enough, it was current Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan and her then-deputy Malcolm Stewart who were arguing this.) There seems to be a lot of misinformation – pushed in part by the president himself – floating around as to just what the court’s ruling in Citizens United vs. FEC means, but measures like disclosure rules and the bans against direct contributions and foreign donations were explicitly upheld in the decision. It’s not that I’m completely unconcerned about such things, either, but the fact that the feds were arguing that they actually have the right to stop a book’s publication if it is too close to an election means to me that they should have lost, hands down.

I thought it was about a movie, not a book, a movie about Hillary Clinton…..but I may be mistaken. But movie or book, you have a point, although I don’t remember the details about the reasoning why some thought that movie (or book) should be banned. I seem to recall that those against the movie or book thought it was some sort of political ad which.

And I might be mistaken about CU and disclosure rules, but I do believe Republicans defeated the DISCLOSE Act which would have required corporations to disclose political donations.

Zermatt2 said:
I thought it was about a movie, not a book, a movie about Hillary Clinton…..but I may be mistaken. But movie or book, you have a point, although I don’t remember the details about the reasoning why some thought that movie (or book) should be banned. I seem to recall that those against the movie or book thought it was some sort of political ad which.

And I might be mistaken about CU and disclosure rules, but I do believe Republicans defeated the DISCLOSE Act which would have required corporations to disclose political donations.

No, you’re right that the case was about a movie. But Roberts asked Stewart if it was the government’s position that they could ban a book, and he said it was; Kagan later affirmed that that was indeed their position.

The Republicans did defeat the DISCLOSE Act, and I can’t say I’m sorry they did. It was drafted behind closed doors with lobbyists (specifically the NRA, believe it or not) and was riddled with carveouts for such groups. If a simple, blanket, no-exceptions-allowed disclosure law were ever put to a vote, I think neither party could stand to vote against it – even though they’d want to. I’m doubtful that will ever happen, though. It seems that Washington is too corrupt at this point.

watch f­ormer NPR (@nprnews) CEO Vivian Schiller speaks LIVE April 5 – 8am ET (via @Media_Cou­ncil) http://f4a­.tv/hHco5b­#PaleyLive­NY – should be interestin­g!