1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Save NPR and PBS

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by nisomer, Jun 22, 2005.

  1. nisomer

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    561
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    MN
    Here's a message from moveon.org:

    Hi,

    You know that email petition that keeps circulating about how Congress is slashing funding for NPR and PBS? Well, now it's actually true. (Really. Check at the bottom if you don't believe me.)

    Sign the petition telling Congress to save NPR and PBS:

    http://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/

    The House of Representatives is about to vote on whether to slash funding for NPR and PBS, starting with "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow" and other commercial-free children's shows. If approved, this would be the most severe cut in the history of public broadcasting, threatening to pull the plug on Big Bird, Cookie Monster and Oscar the Grouch.

    The cuts would eliminate more than $200 million for NPR, PBS and local stations immediately, with more cuts likely in the future. The loss could kill beloved children's shows like "Clifford the Big Red Dog," "Arthur," and "Postcards from Buster." Rural stations and those serving low-income communities might not survive. Other stations would have to increase corporate sponsorships.

    The House will vote on the cuts as soon as Tuesday. Can you help us reach 1 million signatures calling on Congress to save NPR and PBS?

    http://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/

    Thanks!

    P.S. Read the New York Times story on the threat to NPR and PBS at:

    http://www.moveon.org/r?r=753


    I've already signed it. Now it's up to you guys.
     
  2. confusedkid

    confusedkid Guest

    Joined:
    May 23, 2005
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is absolutely ridiculous. How can a Republican-led Congress that has made "family values" one of its dominant themes actually cut the budget of PBS??? It provides excellent educational programming when all that is left on commercial TV is filth. (Don't get me wrong, I love the crap on TV, but it does NOTHING to promote learning like Sesame Street and Reading Rainbow do.) Hypocrites. All of them.

    Books or bombs? I guess we have Tom DeLay's answer.

    -CK
     
  3. hawkeye

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    This really is a strange subject. Hmm, I guess i need to help defend the Republicans, because thats what i do 2nd best (My best is computers, but i get a lot of practice on this one sadly). Anyways. (from this point on, nothing should be taken as whatever i say is how i believe it must be done, it is just my interpretation of how the republicans set their views)

    Republicans = white Catholics.
    Amazing, huh?

    So, of course they are for family values, like no business on sundays, and vacations on the weekends. But, Republicans also carry the belief of leaving the government out of business. Which can be seen in many of the high profile issues. By decreasing national funding for PBS, the government can remedy the problem with Social Security, Which they are going to allow you to manage in companies, rather than just through the government. Your education would then, of course, come from private companies rather than the government. The company that can do it the best wins. The government then has to worry a lot less about these problems with the companies only trying to make a profit by providing the best service compared to competitors. Basicly, republicans love competition. The free market. It's amazing. Businesses need to fight for your dollar, rather than the government just taking it without giving you a choice. The government ceases to be a monopoly, and competiton drives prices down and service up.

    So do you want everything force fed to you by the government, or do you want to choose what you do with your money? Pay for PBS in your taxes, or pay for only the channels that you actually are willing to subscribe to? Pay for schooling even if you are out of school, or pay for schooling while you are getting taught? Let government employees on a salary decide what becomes of your money in social security, or allow yourself to invest it in other places? If you look at Demacrats, They are for government control of many things. This can be good, like, how would you feel if the government didnt regulate cars? that'd be a mistake, but (in my view) the government pays to make sure that you can safely use a car, rather than pay for your car, and hide that cost in your taxes.

    Darn, i finished my last skittle writing this post. Guess that means i need to go to bed. Gnight.
     
    #3 hawkeye, Jun 22, 2005
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2005
  4. confusedkid

    confusedkid Guest

    Joined:
    May 23, 2005
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh Hawkeye... it's a good thing that my entire famliy is Republican and I'm still (technically) one... gotta get that voter registration changed.

    The government provides services deemed worthy of public use that would not be viable in the market. I don't believe that Reading Rainbow would rake in so much advertising revenue as "CSI: Podunk" or the newest spinoff, "Law & Order: Trail by Military Tribunal" would.

    In almost all situations, businesses can provide many services at lower cost than can the government. Public television is NOT one of those services. Using the "market can do all" argument, we should just pay Lockheed Martin to defend us, because business can run an army better than a lumbering government. Probably true, but again, wrong.

    There are other ways to fix social security... reduce military spending (GASP!) and bring all our soldiers home from wherever they may be... or perhaps, we don't need to build any new shipyards in Texas with porkbarrel spending? (GASP!) Or POSSIBLY, just possibly, we can get rid of Social Security altogether! Because I can tell you this, I can fund my own retirement better than the government. And just FYI, it's not the company that can provide a public service the "best" that wins government contracts... it's the company that provides the service the cheapest. You want to know why public facilities blow? It's because the government is barred by law from buying quality, instead it has to buy cheap.

    And no, I don't want the government controlling all aspects of my life... I want to marry who I want, want people to be able to make family decisions on their own such as abortion and end-of-life issues, I want the government to deregulate the sale and distribution of alcohol and decriminalize marijuana use (I don't smoke, but I still think the war on drugs is one of the greatest US policy failures ever). But considering the massive importance and value I place on public television and education, I'm willing to fund it with my tax dollars. And yes, I work for the government one day a week, because that's about as much as they take out of my paycheck... and while I don't like it, I see its necessity.

    -CK
     
    #4 confusedkid, Jun 23, 2005
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2005
  5. hawkeye

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    OK, i agree, the government should take control of certain markets, but it is very hard to define these markets. First of all, I know that broadcast stations are required to air so many hours of educational television. Of course this wouldnt air during CSI, or American Idle, Thats when the adults take over the tv. Most kids shows are from 6-8 AM, and 3-5 PM, right before and after school. If you ever stay home and watch tv, you also notice that the stations that air tot shows air them during the school hours, when everyone is either at work, or at school, and the baby needs something to do.

    Social Security, this is a complicated one. I didnt realise this untill just recently, but Social Security not only makes you save for retirement, but it acts as a redistribution of wealth. The poor people in social security usualy get more out than they put in because the absolutely need it to live. So social security supports many people from going into extreem poverty. You almost have to keep it for that purpose, but they are trying to change it by allowing you to put it into certain parts of the stock market so more money is avaliable that what would have been.

    I believe the government needs to supply the people with things that competing companies couldn't possible supply us reasonably. Things like roads (could you imagine toll ways everywhere?), Parks, and schools (i believe that if you don't like public schools, you can go to a private one, and you do have to support those families that cant afford schooling), Military, and i'm sure there are plenty of other examples that i cant think of.

    And about the military. The government has to keep a military, in my view, it is the most important thing. Since we (the US) are a huge country, with a pretty good standard of living... and a stuck up attitude, we absolutely need to be able to defend ourselves better than any other country. The first country with a big head would set us up as the primary target. The only problem now is that the line between defense and offence has been blurred. instead of waiting to be attacked first, (ok, i guess we did wait to be attacked, didnt we) we are going after those who have attacked us, and probably will again. Clinton allowed Hussein to stay in power, and hussein even threatened us! Finaly, we went after him.

    Darn, I dont want to ramble, but i think I'll just be typing this tomorrow, so here's the deal with the WMDs. We know that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. We sold them to Iraq. Thats right, the US sold weapons to Iraq, but at the time it was in our favor. So, after the Gulf War, the UN set some resolutions on Iraq, one forbiding them to sell oil for anything but money for food, and another ordering to get rid of their weapons and proving that they are destroyed. Iraq never proved they were destroyed, and hussein gave oil to the people in charge of the oil for food program, therefore a few people in the un became corrupt. Thats why we didnt get approval to invade iraq, everyone was profiting from Hussein. And we didnt find any WMDs, so what, have you ever thought of the amount of space that is needed to store these? its a small amount compared to the amount of land Iraq has, and you can bury things too.

    Darn, ran out of skittles again.