Defund NPR and PBS

[MrFedEx]

What evidence do you have showing that Fox is supported by tax dollars???? I'll say it for you...NONE. They may enjoy a few tax breaks just like NBC,MSNBC, etc etc, but that isn't the same as getting a big check from Uncle Sam.
Where do you get the idea that it is OK for tax dollars to support a bias either way??? I wouldn't like it if NPR and/or PBS was conservative biased either.

You should recognise someone pulling blather from where the sun don't shine, you do on most everything you post.
OH and BTW, I have never said, implied nor pretended that Fox was not biased.

I'm certainly aware that FOX is a private concern. Whatever you may think of PBS, I'd rather watch intelligent programming than what is essentially the media outlet for the GOP. Do I care that PBS is supported by tax dollars? Not really. And that's because the government usually funds that which isn't driven by pure profit motive.

Republicans are always able to put a price on anything, which shows which way their moral compass is pointing. Not toward right or wrong, but toward the green, which is all that they seem to understand. You are outraged at anything that we collectively pay for as a society, unless, of course, it has to do with war or war for profit. Then, it's OK.

I love how Republicans try to "own" morality and righteousness, and then act and think almost reflexively in the opposite direction.

 

[trplnkl]

I'm certainly aware that FOX is a private concern. Whatever you may think of PBS, I'd rather watch intelligent programming than what is essentially the media outlet for the GOP. Do I care that PBS is supported by tax dollars? Not really. And that's because the government usually funds that which isn't driven by pure profit motive.

Republicans are always able to put a price on anything, which shows which way their moral compass is pointing. Not toward right or wrong, but toward the green, which is all that they seem to understand. You are outraged at anything that we collectively pay for as a society, unless, of course, it has to do with war or war for profit. Then, it's OK.

I love how Republicans try to "own" morality and righteousness, and then act and think almost reflexively in the opposite direction.

Oh come on, get real. Let's not pretend that the democrats have some form of "moral compass" that others do not. That is purely laughable. Let's check the dorection of that moral compass, who favors the killing of innocent babies yet oppose the eliminating murderers? That's just one on the list, but it is a BIG one IMHO.
Unfortunately , the cost of things is how we keep score. There is going to come a time that the American people can not continue paying the price to be humanitarians. our pockets will be empty. When the people that have been "sharing their wealth" are totally bankrupt, who will be left to "pay the price"? It won't be the government, their only income is from the pockets of hard working Americans not the panhandlers down on the corner.

If PBS and NPR are so important to our country, why doesn't Soros just totally support them out of his own pocket? He certainly can afford to do so. Or is the "price" too high?

 

[curiousbrain]

You mean to tell me that this guy wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal that raises questions about NPR/PBS' funding? I don't believe it.

 

[moreluck]

"....PBS, I'd rather watch intelligent programming ...."

And, How much do you send in at pledge time ?? I actually feel kind of guilty if I put on PBS because I don't support it. The other stations have advertising that rakes in the bucks.

 

[MrFedEx]

Oh come on, get real. Let's not pretend that the democrats have some form of "moral compass" that others do not. That is purely laughable. Let's check the dorection of that moral compass, who favors the killing of innocent babies yet oppose the eliminating murderers? That's just one on the list, but it is a BIG one IMHO.
Unfortunately , the cost of things is how we keep score. There is going to come a time that the American people can not continue paying the price to be humanitarians. our pockets will be empty. When the people that have been "sharing their wealth" are totally bankrupt, who will be left to "pay the price"? It won't be the government, their only income is from the pockets of hard working Americans not the panhandlers down on the corner.

If PBS and NPR are so important to our country, why doesn't Soros just totally support them out of his own pocket? He certainly can afford to do so. Or is the "price" too high?

Yep, Republicans don't want abortion, and yet they cut the social programs that would be necessary if those children were actually born into primarily poor households. The WSJ is a Republican publication in case you haven't noticed lately. It's very unlikely that you would see anything kind said about liberals in it.
Your tax dollars are largely subsidizing the rich these days, not the poor, and "trickle down" economics is a farce. Tax breaks for the wealthy don't create jobs, they just help pad the bank accounts of the privileged.

 

[MrFedEx]

You mean to tell me that this guy wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal that raises questions about NPR/PBS' funding? I don't believe it.

I just saw the link, which explains a lot doesn't it? He is a real piece of work, isn't he?

 

[Babagounj]

"Tax breaks for the wealthy don't create jobs, they just help pad the bank accounts of the privileged."
But when the rich buy their toys, jobs are created; some one has to clean & maintain them.

 

[MrFedEx]

"Tax breaks for the wealthy don't create jobs, they just help pad the bank accounts of the privileged."
But when the rich buy their toys, jobs are created; some one has to clean & maintain them.

The rich already have their toys. Maybe Rush will let you polish his Gulfstream. Trickle -down is really trickled-down, as when a rich person pees all over you.

 

[packageguy]

Your 100% right, don't pick up the phone, don't donate---- turn the blind eye.

 

[moreluck]

The rich already have their toys. Maybe Rush will let you polish his Gulfstream. Trickle -down is really trickled-down, as when a rich person pees all over you.

You know, people who work at UPS could be considered rich.......you'd be surprised to find out you are probably up there in the top percentages of wage earners. If you want to hate the rich....maybe you should hate the uber-rich.

this is old, but....

"Including all tax returns that had a positive AGI [adjusted gross income], taxpayers with an AGI of $153,542 or more in 2006 constituted the nation's top 5 percent of earners.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/The_top_5_percent_of_wage_earners_in_America_annual_income#ixzz1FrQeVxDP​

 

[wkmac]

"Tax breaks for the wealthy don't create jobs, they just help pad the bank accounts of the privileged."
But when the rich buy their toys, jobs are created; some one has to clean & maintain them.

I guess some people can only see the Hamster Wheel and the fear of leaving the cage completely is beyond thought.

The rich already have their toys. Maybe Rush will let you polish his Gulfstream. Trickle -down is really trickled-down, as when a rich person pees all over you.

And there are others who also like the cage but just want someone different to come water and feed them everyday!

 

[trplnkl]

Yep, Republicans don't want abortion, and yet they cut the social programs that would be necessary if those children were actually born into primarily poor households. The WSJ is a Republican publication in case you haven't noticed lately. It's very unlikely that you would see anything kind said about liberals in it.
Your tax dollars are largely subsidizing the rich these days, not the poor, and "trickle down" economics is a farce. Tax breaks for the wealthy don't create jobs, they just help pad the bank accounts of the privileged.

The longer social programs keep providing free services, such as day care, they baby factories will stay open and don't kid yourself ALL of the people that use the free day care are not going to work. Tax breaks may be letting the people that pay over 90% of the federal bill already hang on to some of their on money. I don't call that subsidizing, it's more like lack of theft. The poor people don't pay taxes...DOH and the middle class pays what the uber-rich don't pay....again 90% or more.

 

[MrFedEx]

The longer social programs keep providing free services, such as day care, they baby factories will stay open and don't kid yourself ALL of the people that use the free day care are not going to work. Tax breaks may be letting the people that pay over 90% of the federal bill already hang on to some of their on money. I don't call that subsidizing, it's more like lack of theft. The poor people don't pay taxes...DOH and the middle class pays what the uber-rich don't pay....again 90% or more.

OK, I'm confused. Republicans are against abortion, so if they get their way and all of the babies from the "Baby Factory" get born and not aborted, who will take care of all those kids? Are all of you in the GOP going to adopt a child? The rich are being subsidized by the middle class, and have been so since Reagan lowered the rate for the top brackets. So, where can I sign you up to adopt that unwanted (probably non-white) child who has no daycare while his parents both work 2 jobs so they can try and make ends meet? There aren't very many high-wage blue collar jobs anymore (most have been outsourced, offshored, or made non-union), so it's almost impossible to adequately provide for a child. More GOP "logic" at work here. If you'd like a black child, there are plenty available. You can name him Barack, and endlessly make fun of him while skirting the edges of race-baiting by insinuating that minorities don't want to work.

 

[moreluck]

We believe in birth control.

 

[bbsam]

The longer social programs keep providing free services, such as day care, they baby factories will stay open and don't kid yourself ALL of the people that use the free day care are not going to work. Tax breaks may be letting the people that pay over 90% of the federal bill already hang on to some of their on money. I don't call that subsidizing, it's more like lack of theft. The poor people don't pay taxes...DOH and the middle class pays what the uber-rich don't pay....again 90% or more.

Oh please. If that's how it is, then it's time to jack those tax rates up. Remember we have a debt. Those paying 90% of the federal bill have been living beyond their means. Even after we stop helping the poor and we don't want to cut SS, Care/Caid, and Defense, we're still deep in the hole and "passing the debt onto our children." When we get to this point, there is one reason to tax the rich. They are the only ones left with the money to pay.

 

[MrFedEx]

We believe in birth control.

Great, so what's Plan B when the child gets pregnant anyway? By the way, it's interesting that the states where abstinence education programs have replaced SexEd have higher teen pregnancy rates. Just ask Bristol Palin what she thinks (thought) before Mom got out the muzzle. I'll sign you up for 2 inner city African-American kids. You're welcome.

 

[moreluck]

kids today get shots....good for 3 mos.......no pregnancies.

 

[MrFedEx]

kids today get shots....good for 3 mos.......no pregnancies.

Not all of them. Just ask Bristol and Levi.

 

[island1fox]

Tax breaks for the rich do not create jobs ??? When the Bush tax cuts were finally approved for the next two years business was able to plan and suddenly 185,000 jobs appeared. Of course that had nothing to do with it !!!
As I have previously said--Obama had us all believing the Bush tax cuts drove the car into the ditch. Amazing that obama's entire four years as President will be under the Bush tax cuts--even when the Dems had control of everything !!!
If Obama did not believe that tax cuts create jobs ---he would have eliminated them !!!

 

[trplnkl]

Yep, Republicans don't want abortion, and yet they cut the social programs that would be necessary if those children were actually born into primarily poor households.
So if a family decides they can't afford to feed and care for their kids it is OK to kill them?? I'm pretty sure that's against the law. The only difference here is in age. Would you support new regulations to allow the killing of a child as long as it's under a year old? Two years old?
The WSJ is a Republican publication in case you haven't noticed lately. It's very unlikely that you would see anything kind said about liberals in it.
What does that have to do with anything I said?? I have not even mentioned WSJ
Your tax dollars are largely subsidizing the rich these days, not the poor, and "trickle down" economics is a farce. Tax breaks for the wealthy don't create jobs, they just help pad the bank accounts of the privileged.
hmmm I'm pretty sure that following the Reagan tax cuts, businesses started hiring employees and the economy started improving .