Monday, August 15, 2011

The Velvet Something

I'll be honest, folks. I've been a strong "lean no" when it comes to funding for NPR and PBS for quite some time now. But when I saw a recent PBS special that had Bobby Vinton and his 90-something mother on stage dancing, that long standing "lean no" solidified into an absolute HELL NO!! I mean, come on here!!..........................................................................................And, really, what in the hell is the government doing subsidizing a TV network anyway? Especially now, I'm saying, with thousands and thousands of options - I ask you. I mean, I know that Charlie Rose and Tavis Smiley are good interviewers and all, but, please, let let 'em get a job in the private sector. If it's good enough (or, if you prefer, bad enough) for Olbermann and Hannity, then it should be good enough for those two, too.

26 comments:

Jerry Critter said...

The government subsidizes private business, why not public television?

#37927 said...

The government subsidizes private business, why not public television?

Cause then the private business welfare queens get less money.

Exxon, BP, GE and the DOD welfare corporations need all the government money they can get to boost their bottom line and hence their corporate officers bonuses.

You already know millionaires just aren't rich enough so they need all the government money they can grab.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I don't think that we should subsidize oil, ethanol, electric cars, organic farming, or any of the other shit that we subsidize, either. The government picking winners and losers in any capacity is highly unseemly, IMO.

Jerry Critter said...

So, we should get rid of all tax deductions which, after all, are just more government subsidies? If you make X dollars, you pay Y dollars in taxes no matter who or what you are. The tax code becomes one tax table. Pretty simple.

Rational Nation USA said...

It is long past time the gubberment stops subsidizing both.

Rusty Shackelford said...

I'm totally against any government subsidizes...except of course legal gambling and casino operation.Seeing that Macau and Singapore have both surpassed Las Vegas in gambling revenue by taking advantage of the robust Chinese economy its time for the Obama administration to step up to the plate and stand shoulder to shoulder with americas gaming industry.I mean come on he continues to support ethanol....and truth be known how many americans use ethanol and how many make a bet on a game now and then.Think about it...how many americans would rather be pumping ethanol into their car or rolling dice at the excitment of the craps table or watching the lights flash on a slot machine.No contest f#^k that ethanol shit...put that dough ito something fun.

w-dervish said...

A 3/1/2011 article says, "A national survey undertaken by the bipartisan polling firms of Hart Research and American Viewpoint indicates overwhelming public opposition (69% to 27%) to proposals to eliminate government funding of public broadcasting, with voters across the political spectrum opposed to such a cut, including 83% of Democrats, 69% of Independents, and 56% of Republicans".

I believe the government picking winners and losers in some capacity is a very necessary proposition... because good ideas could die (or languish) for lack of capitol to support and grow them. Do you know how much medical R&D is done by college universities? (one example how government subsidizing something is good for everyone).

I read an article recently about how the manufacturer of a snakebite anti-venom was discontinuing the product because it wasn't profitable enough (and they are the only manufacturer)...

Which means that future victims will have to stay on ventilators for weeks until the poison wears off (and the cost of their hospital visit will be astronomically more). Sounds to me like something the government should subsidize.

IMO it's very dumb to be against all government subsidies.

Jerry Critter said...

It seems to be all or nothing with republicans/conservatives.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Obie is on his magical misery bus tour touting his renewed(once again)focus on job creation.He's riding on a bus that cost 2.2 million of tax payer dollars....the only kicker is the bus was made in Canada.This friggin communtiy organizer is without any clue at all.
After the unemployment bus tour him,Moochelle,big mama and the tykes are scooting off to the middle american bastion of Martha's Vineyard.

silly rabbit said...

Lots of interesting stuffs here!

As for PBS... when it began, it was the channel for educational material... from Sesame Street to scientific shows on many subjects. Now that cable channels have begun to specialize in these areas, we have more than enough public informational shows. Perhaps PBS should switch to being a paid cable channel that viewers can choose to buy or not. About the only show left on it that we still watch are the occasional concert. Otherwise, we use our cable channels.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I'm not an all or nothing guy, Jerry. I am for funding for Planned Parenthood and I was with you guys on the unemployment extension debate.............Thanks, rabbit and welcome back. Yeah, that's a good suggestion. And they could also do more advertising (instead of those obnoxious phone drives) for money. Everybody else does it.

Jerry Critter said...

I meant is as a more general statement. I was not targeting you directly. You are much more middle of the road.

dmarks said...

Will said: "I don't think that we should subsidize oil, ethanol, electric cars....picking winners and losers in any capacity is highly unseemly, IMO."

One of the main and best arguments of the Tea Partiers, actually.

-------------

Jerry said: "So, we should get rid of all tax deductions which, after all, are just more government subsidies?"

To answer your question; they most certainly aren't. Check out what "subsidy" means. Letting people keep more of their OWN money is not a gift or a grant from the government. There is simply no transfer at all.

------------

Rusty: You lost me. Where are there government subsidies for casinos?

Silly: I used to voluntarily donate to PBS year after year. Then I found out I was also being forced to donate all along. So I stopped. Everyone should stop giving one cent to PBS and NPR affiliated stations until they stop accepting forced "contributions'.

w-dervish said...

Rusty: the only kicker is the bus was made in Canada.

From the Chicago Tribune, 8/17/2011: President George W. Bush used a bus from the same manufacturer, Quebec-based Prevost, for a spring 2004 "Yes, America Can" campaign tour through the Midwest.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: Check out what "subsidy" means. Letting people keep more of their OWN money is not a gift or a grant from the government. There is simply no transfer at all.

dmarks, I think YOU need to check out what subsidy means. Wikipedia says, "A subsidy is money given by a government...".

I believe you're thinking of a tax break. You could call that "Letting people keep more of their OWN money". That is NOT the case with a subsidy!

dmarks said...

WD: Some mistakenly call tax breaks "subsidies". I well know the difference.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: Some mistakenly call tax breaks "subsidies".

No they don't. They are different things... that is why there are two different words.

dmarks said...

Yes they do. I see for example in discussions of the oil companies, tax breaks called subsidies.

dmarks said...

As for calling tax breaks "subsidies", apparently you do not do it, but many do.

Please Google the oxymoronic phrase

"subsidies in the form of tax breaks"

and you will find 26,000 examples of ignoramuses confusing the two.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: "subsidies in the form of tax breaks" [is an] oxymoronic phrase.

If the government decides to subsidize an industry it makes sense to cut their taxes first... instead of collecting the taxes and then giving the money back. In this case I think "subsidies in the form of tax breaks" is an accurate description.

I'd also strongly disagree with your statement that a tax break is "letting people keep more of their OWN money".

It isn't "their own money", it is money they OWE the government. I don't know how you can stand behind this statement... unless you believe government should be abolished, or run completely on charitable donations... taxes MUST be collected.

dmarks said...

"In this case I think "subsidies in the form of tax breaks" is an accurate description."

However, tax breaks can never be subsidies, since it is not a 'grant' or gift to let someone keep more of their own. Never take it or give it in the first place.

From earlier: "No they don't. They are different things... that is why there are two different words."

You changed your mind on tax breaks and subsidies now, I see.

"[1]It isn't "their own money", [2]it is money they OWE the government."

It's always their own money. Whether or not it might be owed to the government. And if there is a tax break, this money is not even owed the government.

"unless you believe government should be abolished"

Sorry, my believe that a person's property that hasn't yet been taken by the government is not government property is not the same as wanting to "abolish government"

"taxes MUST be collected."

Of course. But what remains, what is not collected is not a gift from the government.

Jerry Critter said...

"However, tax breaks can never be subsidies,"

I would say it is a gift from the government when you don't have to pay the same rate as others do. For example, if the tax rate on $50,000 of taxable business income is 25%, but because my business falls under some special government provision which has been given a tax reduction so that I only have to pay 20%, I would say that 5% savings is a gift, or a subside, from the government.

Tax breaks or subsidies, call it what you want, but the fact is that I end up with more money than others with the same taxable income because the government has made a special provision for me.

Why not argue about the action rather than what to call it. Is it appropriate for the government to single out certain segments of the economy for special treatment, be it tax breaks or subsidies?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

wd, I am in favor of the government funding research. I'm just not in favor of the government trying to dictate the direction that that research goes. I much prefer the scientists/private sector doing the dictating.

Jerry Critter said...

How can the government make decisions about who and what get funded without dictating to some degree the direction that the research goes?

dmarks said...

"I would say it is a gift from the government when you don't have to pay the same rate as others do."

Then you would be entirely uninformed on the meaning of gift. As the stuff you already have that hasn't been forcibly appropriated is never a "gift'.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Jerry, as long as it's the scientists who are dictating the research, and not a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats, I can live with it.