Federal Funding for NPR & PBS?

The GOP wants to cut it and let them survive on personal and corporate donations.
I listen to NPR daily and agree with them. Since the average NPR listener has above average income, the federal money is a subsidy for the rich.

Same example as when a city funds the local opera that 99.5% of the citizens never use. If people want NPR and the fine arts, let them pay for it.

Wouldn't the PBS stipend which is generous enough that the head of PBS earns over 500K a year be better spent on people who actually need it?

I'll agree to forcing PBS & NPR to be supported with private funds when they stop taxing me for everyone else's "male bonding experience" with the new Broncos and Rockies sports stadiums.

LadyJazzer wrote: I'll agree to forcing PBS & NPR to be supported with private funds when they stop taxing me for everyone else's "male bonding experience" with the new Broncos and Rockies sports stadiums.

I did not know that the feds fund stadiums.

If we debate the merits of various programs, nothing will get done. We are so far in the hole that everything has to be cut across the board.

No need for that multi-million dollar stadium if the poor players go on strike.

"Federal" vs. "non-Federal" wasn't the point. The point was that one person's "unnecessary tax support" is another person's "worthwhile expenditure."

LadyJazzer wrote: "Federal" vs. "non-Federal" wasn't the point. The point was that one person's "unnecessary tax support" is another person's "worthwhile expenditure."

That was my point also. If we debate the merits of every program, we are screwed. Cut everything.

I'm certainly for letting the stadiums revert to the obscenely wealthy owners, and letting them pay for their OWN toys...

LadyJazzer wrote: I'll agree to forcing PBS & NPR to be supported with private funds when they stop taxing me for everyone else's "male bonding experience" with the new Broncos and Rockies sports stadiums.

One key difference? The local people got to vote to increase their taxes to support the new stadiums, what percent of the federal budget do we get to decide directly? 0%

That's why it's a REPUBLIC and NOT a DEMOCRACY... We send our representatives to Washington and they VOTE FOR US. I don't WANT a federal government that is ruled by a "majority vote"...If that were the case, we'd still have slavery.

SS109 wrote: The GOP wants to cut it and let them survive on personal and corporate donations.
I listen to NPR daily and agree with them. Since the average NPR listener has above average income, the federal money is a subsidy for the rich.

Same example as when a city funds the local opera that 99.5% of the citizens never use. If people want NPR and the fine arts, let them pay for it.

Wouldn't the PBS stipend which is generous enough that the head of PBS earns over 500K a year be better spent on people who actually need it?

Getting back to the OP, the answer is yes. An even better use would be to not spend it at all. Otherwise it gets back to bickering about who's programs are more worthy and we are screwed.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/#