The new US Congress in it's infinite wisdom is now proposing a bill that would cut off all federal funding for public broadcasting, both radio and television. The cost annually would save taxpayers a whopping $1.35 per citizen. The cut would likely devastate public broadcasting to operate as they have, since some politicians consider it a "luxery" that somehow we can no longer afford. This is entirely politically motivated, and attacks one of the best information sources we have. Think of all the programs they have developed, from Ken Burn's series, to Nova, to Frontline, to kid's programming, and on and on. The money this will save is squat. The cost of losing the service is far greater.
Cutting Off Your Nose To Spite Your Face
- Thread starter Asterix
- Start date
Local Radio news is generally good and neutral most of the time, but you could take Dianne Rehm and put her on a desert island. On the television side, Nova is excellent as is the American Experience. Frontline so-so, and their national and political news quite biased, their U.S. Supreme Court reporting by contrast is generally quite good, but that is because they generally bring in outside commentators from professional journals.
It is likely fox news and the networks banding together to avoid the embarassment of their news coverage being so poor compared to what PBS serves up.
So why is Congress putting all that in jeopardy? Somewhat a rhetorical question. And while we're talking about it, give me an example of how their national and political news is quite biased.
Actually in entitlements principally: Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, (Social Security was supposed to be self-supporting but Congress has "borrowed" millions of dollars from the Social Security Trust Fund over the years, none of which has been repaid).
It might be added that none of the above are constitutionally mandated*, however, on the other hand providing for the common defense is specifically mandated.
*In fact since they are not, they have to be back doored through such devises as the Commerce Clause, stating that in Congress' opinion they are related to interstate commerce.
GOPers have been trying to kill NPR and PBS since their inception because Commercial networks and Cable TV, along with commercial radio (all a vast commercial riddled wasteland) hate the quality programing and competition they offer.
GOPers have been using the same lame arguments to eliminate the US Post Office. All of course the behest of UPS, FedEx and other commercial postal carriers....
GOPers have been using the same lame arguments to eliminate the US Post Office. All of course the behest of UPS, FedEx and other commercial postal carriers....
If you call the occupation of Iraq "defense", then there is no reason not to call social security "defense" also.
During FY 2009, the federal government collected approximately $2.1 trillion in tax revenue. Primary receipt categories included individual income taxes (43%), Social Security/Social Insurance taxes (42%), and corporate taxes (7%).[6] Other types included excise, estate and gift taxes. Tax revenues have averaged approximately 18.3% of gross domestic product (GDP) over the past 40 years, generally ranging plus or minus 2% from that level
During FY 2009, the federal government spent nearly $3.52 trillion on a budget or cash basis, up 18% versus FY2008 spend of $2.97 trillion. Primary expenditure categories include: Defense and Homeland Security ($782B or 23%), Social Security ($678B or 20%), and Medicare & Medicaid ($676B or 19%). Expenditures are classified as mandatory, with payments required by specific laws, or discretionary, with payment amounts renewed annually as part of the budget process
social security- collected 42% of 2.1 trillion or 880 billion. spent was 678 billion. so it seems to be paying for itself?
defence and homeland security - 782 billion. even just get out of iraq and korea and bring your troops home has got to save you alot of money.
When I'm down there, the only watchable stuff is to be found on PBS and the BBC. The media landscape in the states is the always the same nauseating menu of celebrity gossip and political trivia that just makes my eyes glaze over. I really hope they don't chuck the CPB under the bus this time.
Alas, I have to concur with this. I don't spend a lot of time in the U.S. but the dreck that passes for "news" and "intelligent discussion" is, well, nauseating. When the headline in the paper or the 6:00 news has something to do with Lindsay Lohan, and buried deep in the back is an article about the current budget deficit, well, that's pretty damn grim.
Sorry, a) I chose to watch the BBC at that hour rather than PBS. b) I don't have to justify myself on TERB. c) I don't sit in front of the television with a notebook jotting down every instance of bias d) if anyone thinks I'm going to remember every jot and tittle for year after year, they really have either a photographic type memory or way to little to do in their life.
