Sorry Dick. I was addressing the opening post, not yours. My bad. On Nov 3, 9:36 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > What I said had nothing to do with what you are talking about. I was > saying that if you are going to cancel NPR and PBS and CPB completely > you need to be ready to replace them with something real. Taking care > of people like Nina Totenberg is also fine. But you need to address the > bigger question of what to do with the whole apparatus of these 3 > entities. Changing their policies can be done within the current > envelope. Changing the whole financing structure of them to make them > go private is a whole other level of action and what I am saying is that > is the level that needs to be addressed before you act. What you are > talking about is piss-ant stuff by comparison. > > On 11/03/2010 09:03 PM, GregfromBoston wrote: > > > > > Nina Totenberg wishes AIDS on a senator AND HIS GRANDKIDS, and you and > > NPR are just fine with it, Juan Williams admits Muslims make him > > nervous on planes (but not Jesse Jackson with blacks on the street) > > and evil lurks. > > > Someone's hypocrisy is rather glaring, and it ain't Juan's. > > > On Nov 3, 8:18 pm, dick thompson<[email protected]> wrote: > >> Granted that your point if correct in the end, the problem is that there > >> are things in existence that you have to put up with for historical > >> reasons. > > >> but As an example take social security. Let's say you get the government > >> to > >> get rid of social security. How do you handle the moneys that people > >> have had taken for social security to date. As an example I am 70 and > >> retired. I put the max amount into social security from the time I was > >> 18 until the time I retired. That is over 45 years of max deductions > >> taking for social security. Do you plan on giving me back what was > >> taken in a lump sum so I can have my retirement. How do you account for > >> the interest I would have received for all those years. And you are > >> talking about millions of people in that circumstances. How do you > >> handle people who are 50 and have paid in for 30+ years. Gonna give > >> them their money back? What you have to do is account for all that > >> first before you decide to cancel social security or medicare, etc. > > >> Same with NPR or PBS or CPB. What are you going to do with those > >> stations and employees and their programming. They have taken over the > >> primary support of certain types of programming. In the old days when I > >> was a kid we did have all kinds of programming on radio and we had the > >> classics on television as well as the currently popular entertainment. > >> How are you going to handle that situation. The people who are involved > >> in these less popular entertainments are needed as well. You need a > >> plan to handling that as well. It is all well and good to say let the > >> market decide but the market decided in the popular cable shows. There > >> is no niche for these entertainments in the popular markets as there was > >> because the government took over that function. You need to account for > >> getting that out there in some way for now to handle that. Right now > >> what is happening is that FOX, who, remember, already had Juan working > >> for them on a part time basis stepped up and hired him full time. That > >> covered that situation and the same will happen with Mara Liasson as the > >> dingbat CEO of NPR mentioned she was also on thin ice with NPR. Come up > >> with a plan to handle what NPR is offering that gets those offerings > >> back out there in the general market and then cut them off. That is > >> what needs to be done. > > >> I would suggest that the same approach be taken with all the entitlement > >> programs. You need to have a soft landing for those who are the > >> "entitled" or else you will be hit with the same game that the Libs are > >> playing over and over every time you talk about losing this or that > >> entitlement, "but what about the cheeellllldddddrrrrreeeeennnnn" or > >> whatever else is there. You have to be ready to answer to that. You > >> have to get people back to thinking about taking responsibility for > >> their own lives. For far too long that has not been necessary as the > >> government has gone about educating people that Big Daddy will take that > >> nasty problem off your hands so you don't have to deal with it. People > >> have to be brought back to the point where they WILL deal with these > >> problems. It ain't here yet and that has to be reversed but it has to > >> be reversed in a way that the public will be ready to deal with it. > >> Again something that has to be ready on Day 1 if you are going to do > >> these things. You have to decide what parts of what the government has > >> taken over are really needed and what you are going to do to replace > >> those functions in the short term or you will not be able to sell it. > >> Your only other option is to make the public agree that those functions > >> are either not necessary or something they can do without for now until > >> they find a way to handle them in the near future. Again that is > >> something you don't have the luxury of doing right now. > > >> On 11/03/2010 07:39 PM, MJ wrote: > > >>> /"The right-wing reaction to the firing of Williams by NPR shows the > >>> true nature of conservatives. As Jacob Hornberger recently wrote: > >>> Conservatives have come to accept the basic principles of the welfare > >>> state and have chosen to devote their lives, resources, and efforts to > >>> reforming it and improving it with what they call market-oriented > >>> reforms. " > >>> /*NPR Flap Shows True Nature of Conservatives > >>> *by Laurence M. Vance, November 3, 2010 > >>> Although it isn t often that conservatives and Fox News come to the > >>> defense of a liberal journalist, I come not to congratulate them, but > >>> to condemn them. > >>> Award-winning liberal journalist Juan Williams was fired by NPR on > >>> October 20 for politically incorrect remarks he made about Muslims on > >>> /The O Reilly Factor/. Fox News then granted him a $2 million, > >>> three-year contract. > >>> Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich wants Congress to investigate NPR > >>> for censorship and calls for consider cutting off its public funding. > >>> NPR is promoting a one-sided liberal agenda, says Republican Senator > >>> Jim DeMint. He plans to introduce legislation stripping NPR of its > >>> federal funding. > >>> Former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee says he will no > >>> longer accept interview requests from NPR. He is likewise calling for > >>> cuts in NPR s federal funding, as is conservative darling Sarah Palin. > >>> House Minority Whip Eric Cantor says the firing of Williams undermines > >>> free speech. He wants to include NPR s federal funding in a contest > >>> that lets Americans vote on programs for Republicans to cut from the > >>> budget. > >>> The right-wing reaction to the firing of Williams by NPR shows the > >>> true nature of conservatives. As Jacob Hornberger recently wrote: > >>> Conservatives have come to accept the basic principles of the welfare > >>> state and have chosen to devote their lives, resources, and efforts to > >>> reforming it and improving it with what they call market-oriented > >>> reforms. > >>> NPR has been around since 1970. Yet, we rarely hear calls from > >>> conservatives or Republicans to eliminate its public funding unless > >>> its liberal bias becomes particularly egregious. Republicans under > >>> Gingrich controlled the Congress during the last six years of > >>> Clinton s presidency. Why didn t they drastically slash the funding of > >>> NPR then? During the Bush presidency, Republicans controlled the House > >>> for six years and the Senate for over four years. Why wasn t NPR s > >>> budget eliminated then? > >>> It is only when some government agency or program does something that > >>> conservatives and Republicans don t like that they ever talk about > >>> cutting its budget or eliminating it. Does House Republican whip > >>> Cantor object to free-speech zones where critics of the president > >>> are relegated? Of course he doesn t, at least not when the president > >>> is George W. Bush or other Republican. > >>> NPR is a creation of LBJ s Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). > >>> The CPB gives funds to local public radio stations that in turn give > >>> money to NPR for the right to receive programming. Eight of the nine > >>> current members of the board of the CPB were appointed by President > >>> Bush. Why did Bush bother to make the appointments? The CPB budget for > >>> fiscal year 2009 (Bush s last budget) was $400 million. Why did Bush > >>> sign any legislation appropriating funds for the CPB? > >>> Something similar to the NPR flap happened during the early 1990s > >>> regarding the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) funding what > >>> conservatives charged was blasphemous and pornographic art. Although > >>> the budget of the NEA was cut to just under $100 million in 1996, its > >>> budget for fiscal year 2009 (again, Bush s last budget) was up to $155 > >>> million. > >>> Conservatives miss the real issue here. The real issue is not > >>> censorship by NPR. The real issue is not NPR s liberal bias. The real > >>> issue is not how much of NPR s budget is funded with tax money. The > >>> real issue is not whether NPR or the CPB or the NEA is funded with > >>> tax money at all. > >>> The real issue is whether the federal government has any business > >>> forming a network of radio and television stations, allocating the > >>> broadcast spectrum, licensing the stations, regulating communications > >>> via the Federal Communications Commission, and setting up > >>> quasi-private non-profit corporations like the Corporation for Public > >>> Broadcasting. > >>> The real issue is whether we should have a nanny, regulatory, > >>> interventionist state. > >>> Statists come in two varieties: left and right, Democrat and > >>> Republican, liberal and conservative. Only libertarians see the real > >>> issues, and only libertarians have real solutions, ones based on > >>> genuine principles of liberty. > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
-- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
