HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Nov 18, 2010 11:21:25 GMT -5
From the leader of the "fair and balanced network": www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45336.htmlWhat is with the far right's current obsession with NPR? THEY DON'T RECEIVE ANY MORE GOVERNMENT FUNDING THAN ANY OTHER NETWORK! People that are contributing to NPR through their fundraisers obviously enjoy the product, so what is Fox's beef with NPR? Oh I get it, Liberals <gasp!> listen to NPR and Fox doesn't like liberals. Got it. |
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Nov 18, 2010 14:02:05 GMT -5
How ironic that he's taking shots at Jon Stewart when this sort of "my enemies are Nazis" talk is EXACTLY what Stewart was objecting to with his rally.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Nov 18, 2010 19:34:10 GMT -5
What is with the far right's current obsession with NPR? THEY DON'T RECEIVE ANY MORE GOVERNMENT FUNDING THAN ANY OTHER NETWORK! I didn't visit your link and don't know what the kerfuffle's about, but that's false. The 900 or so local NPR affiliates get about 5–6% of their funding directly from various levels of government, about 10% from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which is nearly wholly federally funded), and another 10–15% from mostly publicly funded universities. NPR itself gets 40% of its revenue from its local affiliates, so something like 5–10% of its funding comes indirectly from government money. All of this is detailed on the NPR's website[/url]. ...[/quote] If you visited my link you would see that NPR gets no direct funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (I guess that means some affiliates may receive funding from there). My feeling is that what these affiliates get in federal funding is about the same that big corporation owned radio stations get in tax loopholes on their profit. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Nov 19, 2010 11:28:44 GMT -5
How many jobs are being created by this measure?
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Nov 19, 2010 11:32:27 GMT -5
How many jobs are being created by this measure? The correct question is the cost per job. Spending $40M to create three jobs is not a better choice than spending $10M to create two. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Nov 19, 2010 11:47:45 GMT -5
How ironic that he's taking shots at Jon Stewart when this sort of "my enemies are Nazis" talk is EXACTLY what Stewart was objecting to with his rally. I would question how faithfully Jon Stewart is, in fact, living the philosophy of his rally, but that's another issue, I suppose. As for NPR, my question is simply this: if they receive such a small amount of their funding from the federal government and if, as their president says, they don't need it to survive and prosper, well then, it shouldn't be a big deal to simply eliminate it. As for Mr. Ailes, well, it's really hard to take someone seriously when they pull out the other "N" word, but I would also submit that the right's "obsession" with NPR is nothing of the sort. At least not in comparison with the left's obsession with Fox News. NPR is getting the outrage equivalent of 15 minutes of fame. The left has been apoplectic about Fox News ever since it came on the air. Also, if you want to type a sentence in ALL CAPS, you really should have more to back it up than "I guess" and "my feeling is." ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Nov 19, 2010 11:58:10 GMT -5
How many jobs are being created by this measure? The correct question is the cost per job. Spending $40M to create three jobs is not a better choice than spending $10M to create two. A million folks in the car industry say hi. It sounds like the answer to my question is 0. Indeed, loss of NPR funding will mean folks are out of work. A little tough to take "correct question" seriously. We don't know what unemployment would be under a Republican plan. Take the bailouts etc. off the table, and we are where? For all the Republicans who were in think tanks after 2008, none seems to have raised enough money to fudge the numbers well enough on that to even make it serious. |
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Nov 19, 2010 12:13:21 GMT -5
The correct question is the cost per job. Spending $40M to create three jobs is not a better choice than spending $10M to create two. A million folks in the car industry say hi. They also say, "Thanks President BUSH for bailing us out!" |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Nov 19, 2010 12:16:24 GMT -5
Yep, it was the right thing to do, as with cash for clunkers. It is not even a serious debate for those families affected even if others chide their jobs as unimportant and unworthy of being saved given the expense.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Nov 19, 2010 12:20:29 GMT -5
A million folks in the car industry say hi. They also say, "Thanks President BUSH for bailing us out!" Whoa Tbird... what, do you work for Fox "news" or something? President Bush had absolutely ZERO to do with the rescue and restructure of GM, although president Reagan did bail out Chrysler back in the day. But the decision to save GM, the negotiations with all parties --Management, UAW, Vendors, Bondholders, Canadian Government, etc. -- was done entirely by the Obama administration while the Republican negative Nellies were vehemently opposed on economic grounds, on fiscal grounds, and mostly because of ideology over reality -- and a commitment to opposing all things Obama no matter how positive they might be for the United States of America. But the largely Republican WALL STREET Community voted yesterday.. with their wallets... and anted up $20 BILLION to buy new shares in the new GM via America's largest IPO ever. You don't need to rely on political pundits or elected officials to get a score card on this deal and whether it is good for America. The investment community just did that for you. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,453
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Nov 19, 2010 12:32:01 GMT -5
But the decision to save GM, the negotiations with all parties --Management, UAW, Vendors, Bondholders, Canadian Government, etc. -- was done entirely by the Obama administration while the Republican negative Nellies were vehemently opposed on economic grounds, on fiscal grounds, and mostly because of ideology over reality -- and a commitment to opposing all things Obama no matter how positive they might be for the United States of America. Ideology - or politics? You can't convince me that Congressional Republicans are making decisions on ideology until they sacrifice something politically valuable to themselves. |
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Nov 19, 2010 13:25:54 GMT -5
They also say, "Thanks President BUSH for bailing us out!" Whoa Tbird... what, do you work for Fox "news" or something? President Bush had absolutely ZERO to do with the rescue and restructure of GM, although president Reagan did bail out Chrysler back in the day. But the decision to save GM, the negotiations with all parties --Management, UAW, Vendors, Bondholders, Canadian Government, etc. -- was done entirely by the Obama administration while the Republican negative Nellies were vehemently opposed on economic grounds, on fiscal grounds, and mostly because of ideology over reality -- and a commitment to opposing all things Obama no matter how positive they might be for the United States of America. "On December 19, George W. Bush announced that he had approved the bailout plan, which would give loans of $17.4 billion to U.S. automakers GM and Chrysler, stating that under present economic conditions, "allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action."[79] Bush provided $13.4 billion now, with another $4 billion available in February 2009. Funds would be made available from the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.[80] General Motors will get $9.4 billion, and Chrysler will get $4 billion.[81]" $13.4 billion isn't "ZERO" Obama has a lot to do with the restructuring, and the rewriting of bankruptcy rules to favor unions over lenders, but GM wouldn't have made it to his presidency without President Bush bailing them out. Same thing with TARP--it was President Bush's policy, continued by President Obama. If you're handing out blanket credit / condemnation, well, they both should get it. If one wants to criticize / praise the original policy, then one should criticize President Bush, and if one wants to criticize/praise the execution of TARP / the GM bailout, then one should criticize / praise President Obama. Also, I'm curious as to what about the last few years makes you think the investment community / Wall Street is the appropriate indicator of what is good for America? |
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Nov 19, 2010 13:51:44 GMT -5
Appendix E of CPB's budget justification is what you want to look at. According to the CPB, 40% of public broadcasting revenues comes from the government. The CPB, an allegedly private non-profit entity (LOL) has just one corporate function: to launder public funds so that NPR and PBS can claim that only a tiny fraction of their operating budget comes from Congress. www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/financials/appropriation/justification_11-13.pdfAs Thomas Jefferson, whose dicta shall never be questioned by good liberals, once wrote: To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. |
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Nov 19, 2010 14:20:59 GMT -5
Same thing with TARP--it was President Bush's policy, continued by President Obama. If you're handing out blanket credit / condemnation, well, they both should get it. If one wants to criticize / praise the original policy, then one should criticize President Bush, and if one wants to criticize/praise the execution of TARP / the GM bailout, then one should criticize / praise President Obama. Perhaps you missed my earlier post about Tarp in another thread. -------------- Dick Bove -- perhaps Wall Street's leading Banking Industry analyst -- had this to say about TARP in his comments today: TARP 'Most Successful US Program Ever': Bove
Excerpts
“In short this may have been the most successful United States program ever,” he wrote. “Moreover, it was bipartisan in the sense that both the Republican Administration that created it and the Democratic Administration that fostered it were unified in their beliefs as to what should have been done—and they did it.”
More than half the TARP banks have repaid the money and the Treasury Department has netted a $28 billion profit so far. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp also has brought in $12 billion on its guarantee program while the Federal Reserve “may have made” an additional $20 billion, Bove said. hoyatalk2.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&action=display&thread=22923---------------------- As for the bankruptcy/rescue/restructure of GM... that happened well after Bush had left office and in the midst of a cavalcade of accusations of "Socialism" for the Obama administration deciding to save GM. No, Bush wasn't there. And neither was anyone else from the Republican Party. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,453
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Nov 19, 2010 14:31:34 GMT -5
"On December 19, George W. Bush announced that he had approved the bailout plan, which would give loans of $17.4 billion to U.S. automakers GM and Chrysler, stating that under present economic conditions, "allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action."[79] Bush provided $13.4 billion now, with another $4 billion available in February 2009. Funds would be made available from the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.[80] General Motors will get $9.4 billion, and Chrysler will get $4 billion.[81]" $13.4 billion isn't "ZERO" So just so we have you straight, George Bush should get credit for giving an insufficient amount of money to actually solve the problem and punting it down the road? Unlike TARP, it's way too early to start declaring this program a success. |
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Nov 19, 2010 14:55:02 GMT -5
Maybe I was too strong in my wording in my first post--as I clarified in my second post. I wasn't saying thanks should be given to just Bush. Just that he deserves some too, if any GM is going to give any thanks.
And I was responding to Sir Saxa, who apparently thinks that President Bush giving $13.4 BILLION to GM and Chrysler meant that "President Bush had absolutely ZERO to do with the rescue and restructure of GM"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2010 17:06:36 GMT -5
As Thomas Jefferson, whose dicta shall never be questioned by good liberals, once wrote: To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. Taxation without representation is tyrannical, too. So let's get me some money back while we're at it. Sincerely, DC Resident |
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Nov 20, 2010 9:23:51 GMT -5
And I was responding to Sir Saxa, who apparently thinks that President Bush giving $13.4 BILLION to GM and Chrysler meant that "President Bush had absolutely ZERO to do with the rescue and restructure of GM" So Tbird, are you trying to tell us we should be calling Pres. Bush a Socialist too? BTW, do you know the difference between providing a short term loan in a stressful time, and, 8 months later, conducting an entire rescue, controlled bankruptcy and restructuring of a major, multi-national corporation? It looks to me like the bailout of the auto industry has been astoundingly successful as social policy (relative to my expectations), but it's certainly not a capitalist triumph and is hardly cause for message-board euphoria. ... Really? GM was toast. Done. Finitio. Their stock was worth....nothing. Without government intervention, that company was down the tubes. Instead they have been restructured and reborn to the point where W. Street has just issued a $20 billion vote of confidence. And for whomever suggested the stock price on W. Street was not a good way to evaluate an investment.... you neglected to put forward your alternative valuation method. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. The bailout of GM has worked out better than most foresaw, but at the company's current valuation, taxpayers are still more than $10 billion in the hole on the deal. The Anti-intervention crowd -- i.e. All the Republicans -- said we would never get ANY money back. Instead, an entire Industry has been saved and the Government -- that's Us -- the Taxpayers, still has 500 million shares that can and will be sold at a future date to further reduce our investment. Even if we never break even, the benefit in the midst of a catastrophic global economic crisis - especially the financial benefit - of restoring GM and the entire auto industry to fiscal health and the millions of jobs involved is well worth the investment. So yes, it is absolutely worth doing cartwheels about  |
|
DanMcQ
Moderator 
Posts: 30,560
|
Post by DanMcQ on Nov 20, 2010 9:39:48 GMT -5
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Nov 20, 2010 10:49:16 GMT -5
And I was responding to Sir Saxa, who apparently thinks that President Bush giving $13.4 BILLION to GM and Chrysler meant that "President Bush had absolutely ZERO to do with the rescue and restructure of GM" So Tbird, are you trying to tell us we should be calling Pres. Bush a Socialist too? BTW, do you know the difference between providing a short term loan in a stressful time, and, 8 months later, conducting an entire rescue, controlled bankruptcy and restructuring of a major, multi-national corporation? I like how you changed the subject there with the socialism comment, rather than focusing on the fact that there is difference between "providing a short term loan in a stressful time" and "ZERO". In fact, it seems that the loan of $9.4 billion to GM was a little bit more than "a short term loan in a stressful time", but a "a necessary step to help avoid a collapse in our auto industry that would have devastating consequences for our economy and our workers." That doesn't sound like "ZERO". Nor does the fact that GM would have RUN OUT OF CASH and stopped operating before January 2009. money.cnn.com/2008/12/19/news/companies/auto_crisis/index.htm?postversion=2008121909 |
|
