S.B. shared this: GOP Completely Fixes Economy By Canceling Funding For NPR
www.theonion.com
WASHINGTON—Unemployment plummeted and stocks soared Tuesday after Republican leaders fulfilled their promise to cut funding for National Public Radio, a budgetary move that has completely rejuvenated the flagging U.S...
S.Y.: Wow, what a relief. So on to world peace then?
S.B.: Yeah, according to Michelle Bachmann, all we need to do is close the US embassy in Iran.
You know, the one that we haven't had since 1979?
S.B.: (so it ought to be easy-peasy) ;-)
Me: Cancel NPR and a hundred (or thousand) other wasteful, useless government programs.
S.B.: yep. let 'em eat cake.
Me: What does the head of NPR make a year, $600,000?
S.B.: I've got no idea rich.
J.J.: That's a shovel-ready option!
J.P.: PBS and NPR provide an important spice in American culture. It's worth the modest investment. Look what has become of cable and what that's done to broadcast TV. The commerical mudwrestling over advertising space and the mindless and heartless statisical outcome of that has driven it to the inevitable optimized market result: the invisible hand would like to know whether you'd like a Coors Light or Bud Light with your Big Mac? How about a tasty Hostess Twinky and a 44 oz Coke for dessert? And how about the "educational" programming on cable TV? Ha!!! What a joke. Shows about aliens, the supernatural and other superstitious nonsense. It's turned into the equivalent of reading a supermarket tabloid. Is there good commerical programming? Absolutely, though you have to look pretty hard to find it in the wasteland of reality TV. Is there independent commercial programming? Nope -- independence costs something and there's no room in the commercial market model for such luxuries. So why does the right wing hate public broadcasting? Is it really about saving the tax payer a few bucks? Of course not. Watch Frontline, the Newshour and listen to All Things Considered and you'll know what's bugging them immediately. That sorta thing is precisely why they want to cut PBS and NPR. It used to be argued that if you were conservative, you had no heart, if liberal, you had no brain. From the looks of the new conservatives, they have neither and don't want to compete with such.
E.S.: My question is where can the GOP cut funding? And when does the spending stop? Yeah lets raise taxes on the rich! Why so we can spend even more? Or try and reduce the deficit? Ill bet the rich wouldn't mind a tax increase if they knew it wasn't going to be wasted.
Me: Hmm. I turn on "This Old House" and there's advertising for Lumber Liquidators, GMC, and State Farm insurance.
The supposed "wasteland" of commercial television does not justify NPR. Non sequitur.
J.P., someone disagrees, and for some reason you seem compelled to insult and denigrate. You can do better.
J.P.: It's useful to remind oneself that GOP policies haven't led to prosperity since early in the last century. One can persuasively argue that ending the stupidity of overwhelming state's rights and slavery through a civil war and ending crony monopolistic unregulated capitalism established good foundations for national wealth and power over the next century (the so-called American Century). Those were great GOP ideas prior to 1915. I doubt such ideologies would be supported by today's mob of neoconservative troglidites. The greatest period of prosperity was lead by New Deal Democrats (FDR's tribe) taking advantage of GOP progressive policies (TR and his tribe). Regardless of party affiliation, progressives are responsible for national wealth and power, not conservatives. Conservatives appear to have contributed very little of value. If you think you like the good old days, you know Leave it to Beaver and Mayberry RFD, you should brush up on who was controlling the Legislature from 1933 to 1994. With regard to what the GOP can cut... it's mythology. In review, Ronald Reagan expanded government while cutting taxes (exploding deficit spending). George HW Bush moderated that huge expansion and raised taxes though he couldn't turn back Reagan's deluge of spending by any means (he got the axe from the GOP base for trying). Bill Clinton ran a surplus effectively shrinking government though he didn't really want to. George W Bush expanded government and started an expensive and unnecessary war while slashing taxes. He never felt any reason to pay for anything. Obama is trying to prevent a total collapse of the US and global economy stemming largely from 30 years of struggles on tax and spending policy and failed financial sector deregulation in 1999. Basically, it can be said that no one has really cut back the government though one side claims it as a rhetorical plank as though they are a champion of such. I suggest that history indicates they're mostly full of crap.
J.P.: Rich: some things are worth a little hyperbole. I was a faithful Republican for 25 years as my close friends can attest. But this new group are not my Republican party -- that I inherited from long family tradition. It was a disappointment, but finally I had enough and had to decide between them and what I felt was in the national interest. George W Bush made that easier, but this new group... Wow, just wow! They need a time out.
Me: No one here is defending GOP policies. Conservative philosophy has not governed financial policy for many decades.
Bill Clinton did not give us a surplus. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
Only Congress has the authority to appropriate and spend money. None of these presidents did what you claimed.
FDR presided over and extended the longest period of financial devastation the country has ever seen.
Everything you have written is false.
Your hyperbole was not generic. I expect an apology.
E.S.: GOP does not equal conservatism.
I do not support deficit spending no matter where it comes from.
It seems the only real cuts in our massive spending are coming from the right at the moment.
What would be ok for conservatives to cut to try and save us from collapse that liberals wouldn't harp on?
Fact: we cannot keep this spending up and expect to be okay.
E.S.: And we need more cuts than defense spending to balance the budget and i don't rule out those cuts.
Me: E.s., allow me to anticipate the next comment from the Left: So where were you when Bush was runnning up the debt and waging two illegal wars? Here's another: Bush is responsible for the huge debt, Obama is just trying to dig us out of the mess he inherited. Ooo, ooo! Here's a good one: Tax cuts for the weathly are what is causing the debt.
S.B.: E.S., - quick: without resorting to google tell me how much federal funding that NPR gets each year? What % of the budget? How much impact will that have if we eliminate it?
A joke is really lost on the true believers, isn't it?
U.M.: Rich - tax cuts for the wealthy ARE what's causing the debt. How do you not understand this? It's really not complicated. Also, at this point if you support the republican party and you are NOT one of the top 400 richest Americans (and I'm guessing you're not) you're screwing yourself over. You are voting for people who are going to make things WORSE for you. NOT BETTER, WORSE. Ethan - the idea tha we can't afford public broadcasting is BULLSHIT. Plane and simple. Last year's taxpayer outlay for public broadcasting was $420 million. Meanwhile, corporate tax breaks cost the US $100 billion dollars annually. The combination of rampant greed and unabashed ignorance coming from the right today is sickening.
Me: And pick out a couple hundred other programs that can be eliminated as well. That's just the low-hanging fruit.
E.S.: Its probably very minimal but it doesn't change the fact that we can't afford it does it? Do u know that off the top of your head without looking it up?
U.M.: Scott- I just answered your question :) And yes, unfortunately you have to have a basic level of intelligence in order to understand sarcasm.
E.S.: Defunding that by itself wouldn't eliminate any of the deficit but combining it with many other federal programs and waste in all departments most certainly would help.
Me: U.M., your bare assertion does not establish fact. As mentioned before, only congress has the authority to appropriate and spend money. That's what they do, and their spending easily outstrips revenue.
Increasing revenue a dollar increases spending $1.83. Sorry, U.M, it's not a revenue problem.
I also noted above that I was not defending GOP policies. Perhaps you should read what is written before commenting.
Oh, and don't forget to add another profanity. That certainly establishes the power of your argument.
U.M.: Rich - The "low hanging fruit" that you speak of is all programs for low-income people. I know this, because I'm currently going to school for social work, so I'm right in the thick of it. Frankly I find it extremely offensive that you consider food & heating assistance (for example) for people wasteful. Also, anyone who knows me knows that I swear all the time. I'm done being polite to people who are running this country into the ground, sir.
Me: Maybe a little economic quiz is in order.
1) How much revenue will be produced over the next 5 years if we tax the top 10% of earners at 100%?
2) How much tax in total is paid by corporations of all sizes?
3) How much economic activity is provided for each dollar of Unemployment paid?
S.B.: E.S., actually, I DID know, because I've been a donor to NPR for about 15 years. the federal share of NPR's funding is apprx. $$3M/year. or about 0.00001% of the current federal budget.
So when someone says that efforts to defund NPR are primarily motivated by the desire to cut the deficit, you can be pretty sure they are full of shit. Because putting that much political capital into a move that affects about one millionth share of the federal budget is NOT going to get us there.....and trust me, it would be a big political battle to defund it.
So you can assume it's about symbolism, about striking a blow against intellectualism (the real demon of the political right at the moment, though that has not always been the case), and about "getting even" for a perceived political bias of those nasty NPR people.
Yes, we need to cut the deficit. THat's the point of the satire in the Onion -- even mentioning NPR or other miniscule programs like it in the deficiit debate, rather than focusing on those things that are large enough to matter -- THAT is a failure to take the issue seriously. But it is chronic.
You want to tackle the deficit? Tackle Defense. Tackle entitlements. START with the big stuff, where the effort involved (and the inevitable economic pain that the country will suffer as part of the "cure"), will be rewarded with actual progress.
If you want to SOUND tough on the deficit, but accomplish nothing, then sure, focus your time on miniscule programs and portions, sound righteous and accomplish nothing.
Me: U.M., you assume a lot, based on preconceived notions and prejudice. You don't know me, yet you judge me without evidence. That is bigotry.
Good for you, you swear. You must be proud. But maybe you can put a thought or two together and make an argument.
U.M.: Ahem: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10#
S.B.: you guys be nice. I hate deleting threads but will do so if people start acting like jackasses towards each other.
No comments:
Post a Comment