NPR & IPTV

Excellent points! Cable and satellite channels do a much better job of providing "diversity of programming" and the PBS shows that are really worth it will be picked up by them, were PBS to permanently go away.

But like most other government hand-outs and entitlements, they only grow and become more numerous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting budget is funded almost entirely by federal appropriations. In 2005 Congress allocated $386.8 million to the corporation's general fund.

The amount that the CPB invests in NPR and PBS is not a significant portion of their operating budgets. However, indirectly the CPB provides very substantial funding to both PBS and NPR, as public radio and television stations feed a significant portion of their budgets back to PBS and NPR through their purchase of network programming.

I don't believe that the government should be funding NPR or PBS. Both NPR and PBS were originally created and funded by the government to provide diversity in programing. With the advent of satellite and cable I consider that justification to be outdated.

I don't dispute that their are programs of value on NPR and PBS. If the government funding was pulled, either NPR and PBS would "adjust" or the programs of value would be picked up by other broadcasting services.

Link:
Corporation for Public Broadcasting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

The US postal service has screwed up a few of my mail deliveries in the past, so maybe we can axe them also now that FedEx and UPS are delivery giants in the private sector....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frontrangeclone

The US postal service has screwed up a few of my mail deliveries in the past, so maybe we can axe them also now that FedEx and UPS are delivery giants in the private sector....

---

Perhaps the US postal service understands your point since they contract with both FedEx and UPS to carry the mail on their airplanes. Somehow, private companies can offer similar service at a lower cost and even provide better pay to their employees.

Well... I don't want to pay for it. So give me your best shot. I've yet to see a reasonable explanation of why I should pay for this propaganda. Take your time, I don't want you to spill your cosmopolitan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frontrangeclone

The US postal service has screwed up a few of my mail deliveries in the past, so maybe we can axe them also now that FedEx and UPS are delivery giants in the private sector....

---

Don't you get a little ticked when you see and hear the USPS commercials? I mean, they use your earnings to try and sell a service to you. That doesn't sound like a helpful government. They served a purpose back in the day but now it's time to give it back to the private sector rather than competing with it. Take the savings and apply it to telecommunication infrastructure so that high speed internet can be affordably supplied to rural areas. Or give it back to the people as a tax cut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting budget is funded almost entirely by federal appropriations. In 2005 Congress allocated $386.8 million to the corporation's general fund.

The amount that the CPB invests in NPR and PBS is not a significant portion of their operating budgets. However, indirectly the CPB provides very substantial funding to both PBS and NPR, as public radio and television stations feed a significant portion of their budgets back to PBS and NPR through their purchase of network programming.

I don't believe that the government should be funding NPR or PBS. Both NPR and PBS were originally created and funded by the government to provide diversity in programing. With the advent of satellite and cable I consider that justification to be outdated.

I don't dispute that their are programs of value on NPR and PBS. If the government funding was pulled, either NPR and PBS would "adjust" or the programs of value would be picked up by other broadcasting services.

Link:
Corporation for Public Broadcasting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

When has the government ever given up control/funding of a function it has been involved in? I'm sure it's happened but I'm struggling to come up with something.

U can probably include HBO in the bias discussioon also.

I thought it was interesting PBS ran a show about the Mormons just as Romney was dropping out of the race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bandit

I don't think much if any of their funding comes from the government.

---

Wrong on that - I know someone who worked for IPTV in the accounting area and much of their budget is government funds.

And as far as all the shows on public TV and radio if they are good they would survive if not on public TV and radio but on another channel - that is the way capitalism works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ISUCyclones

Well... I don't want to pay for it. So give me your best shot. I've yet to see a reasonable explanation of why I should pay for this propaganda. Take your time, I don't want you to spill your cosmopolitan.

---

I'll make you an offer you can't refuse. I'll pick up your tax bill for public broacasting, if you'll pick up my tax bill for the Iraq War.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cutlass

I'll make you an offer you can't refuse. I'll pick up your tax bill for public broacasting, if you'll pick up my tax bill for the Iraq War.

---

I might just take you up on that offer if you could tell me exactly how much in taxes you are personally paying for the Iraq war.

I may be wrong here, but I have a sneaking suspicion that your tax bill is much less than many others on this board. It seems that those who pay the least in taxes are most often the ones that are most vocal about government expenditures. Those same people are usually the same ones squawking about how someone else should pay for what they either can't afford or choose not to pay for (ie health care).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mclatch

When has the government ever given up control/funding of a function it has been involved in? I'm sure it's happened but I'm struggling to come up with something.

---

Actually, telephone and electric utilities used to be heavily regulated. That has changed though, deregulation has allowed for an expansion in services that we've seen in telecommunications. It only took a great president to get that done (Reagan).

Just as an FYI, the Postal Service hasn't accepted public subsidies since 1982. They do not receive any tax dollars for support.
USPS - Postal Facts

The more you know... :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abcguyks

I might just take you up on that offer if you could tell me exactly how much in taxes you are personally paying for the Iraq war.

I may be wrong here, but I have a sneaking suspicion that your tax bill is much less than many others on this board. It seems that those who pay the least in taxes are most often the ones that are most vocal about government expenditures. Those same people are usually the same ones squawking about how someone else should pay for what they either can't afford or choose not to pay for (ie health care).

---

I'm not rich by any means, but my income is well above the median. Software developers do get paid decent coin. So I pay my share of taxes. I'm also not complaining about the taxes I pay. I'm all for repealing the Bush tax cuts. I'd rather not pass on my debts to my children.

My point is that the public broadcasting budget is a pitance compared to defense budget.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cutlass

I'm not rich by any means, but my income is well above the median. Software developers do get paid decent coin. So I pay my share of taxes. I'm also not complaining about the taxes I pay. I'm all for repealing the Bush tax cuts. I'd rather not pass on my debts to my children.

My point is that the public broadcasting budget is a pitance compared to defense budget.

---

And the defense budget is a pittance compared to the welfare/entitlement sewer we pour the majority of our tax dollars into with no return. In fact, in return for this incredible wastage of funds, we get "negative" return, in that welfare/entitlements have destroyed the concept of family and have turned our inner cities into a wasteland/war zone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

And the defense budget is a pittance compared to the welfare/entitlement sewer we pour the majority of our tax dollars into with no return. In fact, in return for this incredible wastage of funds, we get "negative" return, in that welfare/entitlements have destroyed the concept of family and have turned our inner cities into a wasteland/war zone.

---

I do not think pittance means what you think it means.

For 2007 Unemployment and welfare accounted for 13% of the federal budget. Defense spending accounted for 19%. And that 19% doesn't include the war in Iraq, as that gets it's own suplementary budget. But the number that really bothers me is the 8% that goes to pay interest on debt.

United States federal budget, 2007 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia