Goodbye PBS and NPR! (Page 2)

Thanks coredump for saying what I was thinking. Renee you started a great thread. So many folks need to learn the difference between news and reporting (which is what journalist do) and orchestrated messaging which is what Fox news and the current admin excel at doing. So many people only want to learn about TRUTH after their teenage daughter misses curfew.

Chris,

I appreciate your honesty. I didn’t expect to have anyone intellectually honest enough to flatly state that he/she is happy to use the power of government to impose his interests at my expense.

Our argument comes down to what one believes to be the legitimate function of government.

The Federal government is not intended to support the all the interests of all the people. The interests that the Federal government is intended to support are few and enumerated in the Constitution. For instance, the First Amendment gurantees the right to free speech, however I am not obligated to listen, nor am I obligated to buy you a radio station. The role of the Federal Government should be small according our Constitution; which has unfortunately become a curiosity of history rather than a guiding document.

Believe me, both PBS and NPR will survive as private entities because: (1) each have excellent programming, (2) each have enough individual support, (3) each have more than adequate corporate support, and (4) the amount of public money entering each entity is, as a percentage, relatively small.

Libraries are locally, not federally, funded. I become more tolerant the less centralized the tax levies become. However, I do believe libraries would also survive without public support. Many are funded with private endowments and donations.

Worthy interests, such as NPR, PBS and libraries would survive a free market, especially if individuals didn’t have half of their income confiscated by an over reaching government. (In MN where I live, when all open and hidden taxes are tallied, the amount of my paycheck that goes to taxes is over 50 %. I am guessing that Il isn’t far behind) What would not survive a free market are expensive interests benefiting few people.

Would you argue that building a corn museum in Nebraska is in the interest of all the people? How about money going to support tourism at a ski resort town in Colorado? Do I really have to deal with and accept the fact that my tax dollars are being spent to fund some jazz festival in Louisiana?

BTW, You look great in your avatar photo! It is because of photos like yours that I will never win BT's Male Hottie prize and also have to wear my helmet, shades and baggy clothing in my avatar photos.

I agree with Chris, but I can see your point of view. To me it comes down to the "promotion of the general welfare" clause. A well educated, well informed citizenry is a free society's best defense against those that would take away their liberties. NPR and PBS serve that function very well, thus promoting the general welfare.

Why else would the producers of the "Patriot Act" be so keen to quash these organizations?

"To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States,that is to say, 'to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.' For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union."

- Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson would disagree with the modern interpretation of the "General Welfare" clause.

Hmmm.  Taken in that respect, I do agree with you.  If I paid less in taxes, I would certainly contribute much more to PBS and NPR than I do today, so I'll agree with you there.

However, as much as my libertarian leanings might wish it, I don't see us moving in that direction.  Therefore, as long as I have to pay taxes, I'm going to lobby like hell for it to be spent on those things that matter to me.  Just as those Nebraska farmers have lobbied for their corn museum ( and apparently, gotten it ).

As long ~50% of my paycheck goes to taxes, I want the government to support NPR and PBS ( and other things, but those aren't germane to this thread ).  If that were significantly reduced, then I ( and I would hope many others ) would be able to provide the level of funding to NPR and PBS that they receive today.

A reduction in funding in conjuction with reduced taxes, I would support.  As long as it is simply a reduction in funding, I'm opposed.

-C 

I think Jefferson's description of Art. I-8-1 there probably isn't in line with funding NPR. But they had to convince a populus that didn't have to pay any Federal taxes at the time to ratify a new Constitution, when all they were sent to do was revise the Articles of Confederation. So it's pretty tough to presume what Jefferson would really have thought about the modern interpretation of the "General Welfare" clause. I had a professor who described government as that which owns a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, so I suppose they are putting a gun to your head. But while there is 1.7billion being spent on "faith based initiatives," and billions more on other programs I disagree with, can my obnoxious elitist northeast ass just have my NPR remain subsidized? please?

I'm no Jefferson scholar, but I've read enough to believe he would be in support of something that would inform the masses and better prepare them to see through and refute the statements of a government that was trying to take away their essential liberties.

Jefferson was a voice, not the voice of the Revolution. I could also get some quotes from John Adams, who wrote the Massachussetts constitution, describing the duty of government to provide free public education.

As long as the attitude remains "as long as I get my share" we will continue to be taxed ad infinitum. At what percentage of income does taxation become slavery?

Even in the broadest interpretation of the General Welfare clause, It is difficult to justify NPR and PBS based upon informing the masses. There are literally thousands of sources of information and education available that are not publicly funded: CBS, NBC, ABC, the evil and dreaded FOX, radio, and the reason that the previously listed sources are declining in viewer and listenership... the internet.

Having read through this thread it has become quite apparent that the old maxim of two things that you should never discuss are religion and politics is very true. We all have our personal political views and we get the opportunity to exercise those choices every two years. Just my opinion.

Brett

I don't believe that the relationship between taxation and freedom is neccesarily as directly inverse as that. But it is easy to justify NPR and PBS with a narrow interpretation of the General Welfare clause. Outside of the few independents that do more than report just on what others are reporting, there are only five news outlets: Viacom, G.E., News Corporation, Time Warner, and Disney. Though I concede that network news and radio are as accessible as PBS and NPR, cable and internet news are available to the privileged, not the "masses." They are not the same, nor do they serve the same purpose. The mass media's primary responsbility is not to inform, but to profit, and to serve the corporate interest. This is true whether the individual reporter's personal goals align or not. That's the nature of capitalist society, and its ok. It works well as long as we understand that. Public broadcasting, by not having to profit, is able to make its primary purpose to inform, educate, etc. It serves to ensure that capitalism can thrive by providing a haven from the corporate influenced message.

Also, Rocketman, I disagree with you for a simple reason. Those things which may be controversial, namely politics, are exactly what should be talked about. We vote every two years in federal elections, but how else are we to challenge our own beliefs but to present them in argument? This kind of discussion is not "to win" but to vet personally. I may disagree with B-One but I respect him, and think as long as the discussion remains topical and not personal, then everyone's interests are served. It's why the first amendment exists. Maybe he'll change my mind, maybe not, but either way discussing makes my vote more informed in '06.

I see your point. But there are many non-profit organizations that even though they don't "exist for a profit," they do exist on the funding of donors. To get donors, these organizations have to provide programing that appeals to donors. So in a sense this an advertising in itself. They will inform, educate, etc the types of peoples that will donate money so that remain on the air, etc.

I am not saying this is wrong and there is a difference between organizations like NPR, PBS, etc and DNC, NRA, etc. Most of the time when I see or hear a telethon on PBS, NPR, etc, it is similar to this statement, "If you watch Austin City Limits and wish to see more programming like this please call ..." While the other organizations usually sound this, "Do you want to see George Bush and the conservative Republicans lose control of the majority in Congress? Consider donating ..."

But regardless of the non-profit organization, the organization's funding depends on broadcasting programming that appeals to people who will support the existence of the organization, so these organizations will have difficult times existing soley to educate, inform, etc the general public without having some bias toward the preference of the donors.

Edited by mnewton 2005-06-20 2:51 PM

I agree that the dependence on donations must inevitably weigh on the programming. I don't know enough to assert that donors either do or do not affect programming, but I'm not sure most pbs donors are affecting programming in the same way a 5 million dollar PAC donor can buy access. Ultimately though, when you need to ask for money, I supose you must allow bias/influence. So from there I suppose I would support further subsidization/total public funding of NPR and PBS.

True freedom does not impose obligations upon another. You have a first amendment right to free speech, but I am not obligated to listen nor to provide you with a printing press. I have a second amendment right to own a firearm, but you are not obligated to buy me a rifle. You have the freedon to eat dinner at a fine restaurant, but I am not obligated to pick up the tab. You are, by extension of the above argument, free to receive information and education from any source you wish, but I am not obligated to fund that source.

The price for freedom has been paid in the past with the blood of our ancestors, beginning with the Revolution and continuing on up to the Second World War. With the exception of Grenada and Afghanastan, I haven't figured out what we have sent our troops into battle for since then, but that is another debate.

Like it or not, it is our military strength, including nukes, that maintains our freedom to debate issues such as this. Also, like it or not, national defense the most important function of the Federal Government. One can argue how that is best accomplished, but it is inarguable that the first function is Defense.

I do agree with you on the pensions for the Congress Critters, however.

And if we are afraid to debate, nobody learns and continues to live in a personal shell. I am grateful and respectful that Renee brought up this topic. I also have respect for and have learned from the arguments that others (including Marmadaddy, Coredump, and johno have put forth.

There may be five MAJOR, US, news outlets, but there are hundreds to thousands of minor, local news outlets and plenty of foreign outlets as well. (Listening to Radio Havanna, Cuba was quite a trip during the Elian Gonzalez mess). It is these minor outlets that really uncover the news and the five majors that you list that act as clearinghouses. I think that the internet is now at least as prevalant as TV was in the late 60s? (don't quote me).

I can't do any better than mnewton arguing that PBS and NPR do answer to their donors.

In '06, I probably won't vote for many winning candidates.

Finally, the respect is shared at this keyboard as well.

When I can opt out of 48% of my taxes going to the military (including 178 billion for Iraq -9 billion of which is completely unaccounted for- though I will gladly pay veteran's benefits ), I will happily allow anyone who wants to to opt out of their .00009% of their taxes that go to funding Big Bird, Miss Marple,and Mr. Rogers re-runs.

Deal?


Edited by lablover 2005-06-21 8:54 PM






Attachments
----------------
bigbird.jpg (33KB - 9 downloads)

We don't have "true" freedom. We have freedoms with conditions. If we had true freedom, we'd have anarchy. You are free, however, to find another society that better suits your taxing preferences. I believe Argentina (or is it Brazil?) is hard pressed to tax its citizens. If you can stand the periodic political and economic upheaval, that might better suit your taxing tastes.

Tongue in cheek response but you get the idea.

David, I really disagree with you on this one.

True freedom lies in living for others. I must admit that this is something that I am not particularly good at yet. Still, I know that freedom is living for others and not for self.

Your reference to the blood spilled in our past helps to show this. Those who died, often knowingly and freely gave their lives for the freedom of others. Some, however, did so against their will. Does that fact mean that, for example, fighting to help free the Jews from the holocaust was wrong? Should the US Army in Europe during WWII have been made up solely with volunteers?

I'm sure you'd agree that there are acts that require that a person be incarcerated. Murder and rape, for example. These are acts that we do against others that rightly cause our liberty to be taken from us.

What about acts that we fail to do? Seems to me that I have a responsibility to help a child who is hungry or a family that is homeless. I ought to do this whether I want to or not.

What form that help takes is certainly open for political discussion. But the fact that I ought to help people like this I think is clear, as is the fact that I should be compelled to do so even against my will.

As soon as we reduce human life and human relationships to a materialistic or economic equation, we lose the essense of what makes us human to begin with.

(This keyboard respects you and yours as well )



Edited by dontracy 2005-06-22 9:25 AM

Coredump, you are a Libertarian? I find that surprising as your viewpoint is far off from the Libertarian stand (which is in my blood). For you to forcibly impose your will upon me (theft of my liberty) is contrary to Libertarianism. When you mandate that I must pay for something that I don't want to pay for, how is that different than stealing? Just because the government collects the money (on your behalf) doesn't change the fact that I am being robbed.

It is a gun to your head. Don't fool yourselves into thinking it's not. Not paying your taxes means having your assets seized. Having your assets seized means someone coming to your home and evicting you at the point of a gun. Continue to not pay your taxes and you can be thrown in jail - at the point of a gun.

The argument "funding NPR and PBS is better than x" is invalid. What if I don't want to fund either? You are still stealing from me. Nobody likes the term stealing, but it is appropriate. Call a spade a spade.

In the end, we have to ask "What kind of government do we want?" Do we want one where looters and moochers can dictate our lifestyles, where whomever has the better lobbyist is the one that wins? Just because "that's the way it is now" doesn't mean that you have to buy into that crap. Stop voting for these theives and see what happens. There are other candidates out there.

Patriot act.... Don't get me started.... Who came up with the name... I guess I'm not Patriotic

You blow up entire planets. No one thinks you're going to take a warm-fuzzy view of cultivating society.

Chucky, it's great to have you back. Thought that plantar fasciitis might have gotten the best of you.



It is different than stealing because the intention is to put your money toward a common good. Now, we may disagree over what the common good is, and politics is the right arena to work that out. But it seems apparent now and through the ages that there is some kinda thing that can be rightly called the common good.

Whether or not NPR falls under the common good is another question. I think it does, but I may be wrong about that.

There is a thing called the common good, and I am obligated to contribute to that willingly or otherwise. It's part of being human.

As bad as you may think things are, it's a heck of a lot better than a system with everyone operating solely out of self interest.

Sorry Chucky, Ayn Rand got it wrong.

When I said in my earlier post that Politics and Religion shouldn't be discussed I was not saying that healthy debate is not a good thing. Generally people are passionate about both subjects and are quick to get defensive about their particular point of view. I am a personally a Republican, Army veteran, Christian Conservative....and I am passionate about all these subjects. That being said I am opposed to cutting funding for PBS and NPR, I have a 2 year old that loves Sesame Street (which is also shown on Noggin) and I enjoy classical music on NPR. Having said that...we live in a welfare state where we continually reinforce bad decisions and support those who are no more than parasites on the backs of all hard working taxpaying citizens. I am as soft hearted and compassionate as they come and would give you the shirt of my back if you really needed it, but don't come into my house take my shirt, pants and underwear without asking and then expect me to give you more next month because you didn't take care of the first set you took from me. There needs to be accountability for your actions and consequences for poor decisions. I am not going to go on a rant about the military or the war but let this be said...everyone of those men and women over there are my brothers and sisters and having been there twice I know exactly what they are going through. When one of them comes home in a flag draped coffin it kills me. We all volunteered, we all raised our right hand and swore to protect the country from all enemies foreign and domestic, and we all knew the possible consequences. Those men and women who have given their lives over there and all of the servicemen and women who came before them are the reason that we have the opportunity to have this discussion. Like I said before we all have the right to vote every two years for change.

Thanks for reading
Brett

Ayn Rand failed at being a decent human being. She never discovered the beauty of compassion. What a bleak existence.