Trump proposes eliminating federal funding for PBS, NPR

[BotanyBoy]

Then where will your expertise come from?

From your experience and connections in the industry.

You don't need to keep getting uberbucks kick backs from hooking up/protecting your company in DC to keep tabs on the game.

I'm not saying cut off contact.

I'm saying cut off the blatant bribery.

No more getting mega millionz n' billionz in kickbacks for hosing the country to protect/enrich yourself and your homies.

The only way to do that would be to set up a legal firewall if you will between uberbux and congress. Make the country and it's economic/social health/security their primary concern again. Not how much money company X Y and or Z is going to give them for pushing legislation the company lawyer wrote up.

I can only think of that being feasible by putting them on the government dole .

3/4 of them are going to spend the rest of their lives up there anyhow.

Having said that, there is also a large and undue influence on the part of some of the players, but I submit, most of that is because how powerful the government has become and those at the top jump through all sorts of hoops to protect themselves while the rest of us are left dangling as low-hanging fruit.

The government always has high power...they are the ultimate authority.

That's why it needs to be restricted.

I think part of that restriction should be cutting off it's primary players from the kickbacks. Putting them on a restricted but not at all bad government living.

If they want to get more money than a fully benefited upper middle class income then they need to fuck off to the private sector and make their fortune. Public service needs to be about public service, not about getting rich extorting the citizenry for companies/unions/special interest groups with the most money.

Until that shit stops this country will continue the downward spiral of an extreme plutocracy that's just getting more extreme.

 

[WoundedKnee]

Your boogyman does not exist, except in your head. You tilt at windmills, which normally I could careless about as long as you only hurt yourself.

I am not going to bother to explain to you why non-commercially sponsored programming is a public good. Suffice to say I see it that way.

Okay, so it is only an opinion, one which you cannot cobble together an argument for.
Unlike the 50s, we now have as many entertainment and news options as we do religious denominations (maybe more), so based upon this fact alone, I do not see why government needs to fund an "official, state-sponsered" version of entertainment and news.

 

[WoundedKnee]

You cannot cut off "the bribery" unless you substantially scale Federal government back towards its original mandate, but clearly, with the new budget and spending, we see that that is never going to happen. That horse has left the barn.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Commercial sponsorship requires complimentary copy for the sponsor. Programming that is not beholden to the sponsor is free from that forced acculturation where all meaning is produced by commercialism.

Programming that is not beholden to the sponsor is a public good.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You cannot cut off "the bribery" unless you substantially scale Federal government back towards its original mandate,

Sure you can, you just need a well crafted amendment that finically isolates top federal appointees, congress critters and POTUS.

Do that and we'll have public servants again instead of a bunch of gangsters up there extorting us.

but clearly, with the new budget and spending, we see that that is never going to happen. That horse has left the barn.

It's going to get a worse before it gets better.

 

[WoundedKnee]

Commercial sponsorship requires complimentary copy for the sponsor. Programming that is not beholden to the sponsor is free from that forced acculturation where all meaning is produced by commercialism.

Programming that is not beholden to the sponsor is a public good.

Even when it is beholden to the government?
Sponsors come and go based upon quality and viewership. As we se all the time, non-government media will stick to its guns even as it loses market share if that is the mentality of its top management. Of the thousands of channels we have to choose from, most of them provide the content they approve of and then try to attract advertisers. The tail does not wag the dog. If the product of NPR and PBS is that good and that "universal" then advertisers will flock to it. Hell, even they still run commercials, but they do it on the sly. Being a little more open about it will not change their content, unless, of course, as I contend, their content is geared towards "free" government money. I don't think we have a lot of "free" government money left. We're now financing a government message with debt. I prefer advertisers.

 

[WoundedKnee]

Good luck recreating some of the great amendments of the past such as Prohibition, the 16th, 17th, and always, , highest up on the list, the 19th.

 

[Que]

Your boogyman does not exist, except in your head. You tilt at windmills, which normally I could careless about as long as you only hurt yourself.

I am not going to bother to explain to you why non-commercially sponsored programming is a public good. Suffice to say I see it that way.

Laughable. It's fine to argue TASS or Pravda is a great idea because it promotes socialistic ideas which you believe are for the betterment of society. It's just retarded to pretend they don't do so.

Not every word uttered on PBS or NPR is objectionable to conservatives. Some ideas and stories are above politics and are fine to express. The vast majority of anything that qualifies as political or opinion oriented on those outlets is overwhelmingly progressive and no objective observer would suggest otherwise.

Progressivism: ideas so great for society that they will have no voice without Government subsidy.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Good luck recreating some of the great amendments of the past such as Prohibition, the 16th, 17th, and always, , highest up on the list, the 19th.

Hua?

I don't see how any of that is related, or what the point is.

 

[WoundedKnee]

Hua?

I don't see how any of that is related, or what the point is.

The naive idea that you can fix/abrogate human nature via an amendment to the Constitution. That was my sole and salient point.

 

[WoundedKnee]

Laughable. It's fine to argue TASS or Pravda is a great idea because it promotes socialistic ideas which you believe are for the betterment of society. It's just retarded to pretend they don't do so.

Not every word uttered on PBS or NPR is objectionable to conservatives. Some ideas and stories are above politics and are fine to express. The vast majority of anything that qualifies as political or opinion oriented on those outlets is overwhelmingly progressive and no objective observer would suggest otherwise.

Progressivism: ideas so great for society that they will have no voice without Government subsidy.

Actually MSNBC, to your latter point, is making a lot of money arguing for more government sans actual government funding (unless you consider leaks as political contributions in kind ).

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Even when it is beholden to the government?
Sponsors come and go based upon quality and viewership. As we se all the time, non-government media will stick to its guns even as it loses market share if that is the mentality of its top management. Of the thousands of channels we have to choose from, most of them provide the content they approve of and then try to attract advertisers. The tail does not wag the dog. If the product of NPR and PBS is that good and that "universal" then advertisers will flock to it. Hell, even they still run commercials, but they do it on the sly. Being a little more open about it will not change their content, unless, of course, as I contend, their content is geared towards "free" government money. I don't think we have a lot of "free" government money left. We're now financing a government message with debt. I prefer advertisers.

Again. You are fighting the boogeyman that lives only on your head.

 

[FGB]

Honestly...I thought That had occurred years ago!

 

[Que]

Again. You are fighting the boogeyman that lives only on your head.

YOUR assertion that obvious bias is non-existant exists exclusively in your head.

Why do you suppose it is that half of the country thinks continuing to fund them is a perfectly wonderful idea and the other half thinks that defending them would be just?

If one-half can see and be delighted with the obvious agenda and the other half infuriated by it, how do you find yourself in a minority of one?

Why is it that you progressives refuse to reach into your own wallets for the things that you believe should be supported? Fund your own abortions and pay for your own propaganda.

 

[Hypoxia]

~~ groan ~~

A return to the general welfare clause. It's the good'n plenty clause of the Constitution.

Darn that Constitution. It even starts with "We, the People," instead of "We, who own the People." What trash! Gotta kill any idea that "the People" has any meaning. There is no public domain. There is no general welfare to provide. There are only the owners and the owned.

You cannot cut off "the bribery" unless you substantially scale Federal government back towards its original mandate...

Metaphor: Society is a computer; law is the operating system. So: You can't go back from Linux to CP/M. The Founders' USA ain't what it is now -- an abacus compared to a Cray. The world's most powerful, complex, and richest society won't run on antiquated software.

But sure, let's do the original mandate: A well-regulated militia of citizens, none denied the right to defend the nation. Absolute freedom of speech and media. No searches without warrants. Jury trials and due process. No gov't action for or against religion. Oh wait, those are amendments. Original mandate: Property-owning white men vote. Women and slaves don't count for much; injuns don't count at all. Intellectual property protection for only a limited time: good. No standing army: right. Presidents and Senators chosen by good-old-boys networks: not good.

Good luck recreating some of the great amendments of the past such as Prohibition, the 16th, 17th, and always, , highest up on the list, the 19th.

16th: Income tax authorized by Art.1 Sec.8 to be fairly executed.
17th: Senators chosen by voters instead of good-old-boys networks.
19th: Women vote. You have no women left in your life. Sad.

You fear the idea of a democratic republic. How about an undemocratic republic like China? They don't let silly impediments like popular votes interfere with running the country. And look at all the Americans emigrating to China! Yes, China is the role model America needs.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Laughable. It's fine to argue TASS or Pravda is a great idea because it promotes socialistic ideas which you believe are for the betterment of society. It's just retarded to pretend they don't do so.

Not every word uttered on PBS or NPR is objectionable to conservatives. Some ideas and stories are above politics and are fine to express. The vast majority of anything that qualifies as political or opinion oriented on those outlets is overwhelmingly progressive and no objective observer would suggest otherwise.

Progressivism: ideas so great for society that they will have no voice without Government subsidy.

And there is the windmill

 

[BoyNextDoor]

YOUR assertion that obvious bias is non-existant exists exclusively in your head.

Why do you suppose it is that half of the country thinks continuing to fund them is a perfectly wonderful idea and the other half thinks that defending them would be just?

If one-half can see and be delighted with the obvious agenda and the other half infuriated by it, how do you find yourself in a minority of one?

Why is it that you progressives refuse to reach into your own wallets for the things that you believe should be supported? Fund your own abortions and pay for your own propaganda.

May assertion is that the he production of non-commercially sponsored content is a public good

 

[Que]

My assertion is that the the production of non-commercially sponsored, specifically progressive, content is a public good because we get a benefit and other people pay for it.

Fixed for accuracy.

As was pointed out, you wouldn't want it to fund programming pushing conservative ideals.

How 'bout we split the difference. Instead of leaving it up to the entrenched cpb bureaucracy all of whom lean liberal let's just allow the executive branch to send whatever money to his personal favorite news and entertainment source.

Trump TV. It could feature "non-commercialy sponsored content."

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Fixed for accuracy.

As was pointed out, you wouldn't want it to fund programming pushing conservative ideals.

How 'bout we split the difference. Instead of leaving it up to the entrenched cpb bureaucracy all of whom lean liberal let's just allow the executive branch to send whatever money to his personal favorite news and entertainment source.

Trump TV. It could feature "non-commercialy sponsored content."

Fuck you. First you and wounded AJ get hysterical. Then you have to alter my post to make.your point? That makes you a complete cunt.

Try again with out altering my post and putting words in my mouth. Otherwise fuck off to your circle jerk and hope you get to eat the cookie, asshole.

 

[Que]

Fuck you. First you and wounded AJ get hysterical. Then you have to alter my post to make.your point? That makes you a complete cunt.

Try again with out altering my post and putting words in my mouth. Otherwise fuck off to your circle jerk and hope you get to eat the cookie, asshole.

You seem very angry.

Your mouth was missing a lot of words on the subject.

Personally, I find it rather annoying the tax dollars go to something that I don't support but I find that to be a fairly weak argument because there are undoubtedly things that tax dollars go to that you don't particularly support. Normally I would be sort of equinaminous about the subject if you weren't such a disingenuous prick about pretending that it doesn't specifically benefit progressives and only progressives.

Given how passionate you personally are about the subject I certainly hope that Trump follows through on insisting on defunding it entirely.

I salute him for bringing up the subject knowing full well that you guys would go into apoplectic you're killing Big Bird mode and display for the entire country how comically full of shit you are.

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

Honestly...I thought That had occurred years ago!

It's been tried a couple times and always failed. It will fail again. That's why all this arguing is pointless.

 

[bellisarius]

The production of non-commercially sponsored content is a public good.

Really? Most of those PBS programs are nothing more than taxpayer funded money machines for the producers. Sesame St. has made millions, if not billions, for the producers over the years. That cash is coming from the licensed products. I'm waiting to see a "Cookie Monster Chip" cookie product being offered. NONE of those revenues flow back into PBS. They have made no contractual revenue sharing arrangements with the producers. This is true for virtually ALL PBS programs. If they had bothered to engage in business like the rest of the industry they'd be self-funding and would still be "commercial free" (which they really aren't, they're just front or tail loaded). They same is pretty much true for NPR. The time to wean them from the government teat is way overdue.

 

[Que]

It's been tried a couple times and always failed. It will fail again. That's why all this arguing is pointless.

Ordinarily, I would agree with this one hundred percent (you are still right that there is not a chance it will be done) but because Trump is so good at triggering the left, he will sneak something by them while they agonize about the assassination of Big Bird. It's *mostly* pointless but I suspect it is a useful distraction.

 

[Hypoxia]

Really? Most of those PBS programs are nothing more than taxpayer funded money machines for the producers.

Most? List them, please.

How much PBS programming is not Sesame Street? How many PBS programs are not cash cows? Is profit the only measure of significance for any subject? Do you, like Marx, believe people are only motivated by money?

The Federal Communications Act of 1934, which regulated transmitters that had previously stepped all over each other, making the airwaves a chaotic mess, required that use of the public spectrum be in the public interest, and allocated much spectrum for educational, religious, and non-commercial use. Are those federal subsidies? Should non-commercial communications be killed?

 

[bellisarius]

Most? List them, please.

How much PBS programming is not Sesame Street? How many PBS programs are not cash cows? Is profit the only measure of significance for any subject? Do you, like Marx, believe people are only motivated by money?

The Federal Communications Act of 1934, which regulated transmitters that had previously stepped all over each other, making the airwaves a chaotic mess, required that use of the public spectrum be in the public interest, and allocated much spectrum for educational, religious, and non-commercial use. Are those federal subsidies? Should non-commercial communications be killed?

Do you're own damn homework. Better yet, spend a few days watching with due attention to revenue streams. Quite frankly there is only ONE program I've detected so far that doesn't have an alternate revenue flow - The Woodwright's Shop.