Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION The Anywhere Machine Anyone think we need PBS

As for the tax cut thing, are you saying that people that take a risk, and invest in their own business', that put their names and livelyhood out there on the line should only be allowed to reap so much benefit? Cause thats what it sounds like.

What do i care how much bill gates has, or Bill Clinton (a very wealthy man now, by his own admission). They aren't me.

And again, you do not see the big picture. They don't change things because they don't necessarily change spending habits. Really? Cause when things are going good, and i have work, i have more money to spend on things like housing, food, clothing, and i have more disposable income. This money is either saved, or placed back in the system.

Now, as to the "best place" for tax cuts...what would you recommend? Give tax breaks to people that don't pay income taxes because they are below the poverty line? Or better yet, give yet more welfare to people that are at or below the poverty line?

Cause those are socialist ideas, and negatively impact society. Right now most of the private wealth of america is concentrated in the hands of senior citizens. Because of loans made, the system that was put in place to aid, has become a crutch that cannot support the payouts the government has promised.

I don't want to see anyone that works, or is willing to work, or trying to work to be hungry, poor, without food, clothing or shelter, but giving tax breaks to people that have the least wealth makes no sense because they aren't paying income taxes to begin with.

Like someone once said, 100% of zero is zero. And really, who are you gonna rely on to give this money out? The government? The democratic party did that for nearly forty years, and instead of helping people move off the welfare and indigent roles, they got bigger and bigger. Those that knew how to manipulate the system got richer, and the government sat around with its thumb up its posterior, but got nice big fat election results.

Social engineering works in social situations. Integration through military for one. But, when you start muckin' around with basic economic principles, you set yourself up for disaster. And america is stareing hard times in the face because people that "felt" things ought not be that way used supposed emotion instead of reason and logic.

More jobs means more people that can afford to move off the help rolls, more people grabbing a better place in life for themselves and their children.

IF you want good examples, look at Russia under communism, or France, right now, under socialism. Go check out France's unemployment rate, as compared to the US.

A lot of people studied economics and finance. And a lot of them disagree with each other.

Your studies don't count for more than anyone else's.

That's certainly true. But like saying "the sky is blue" it's just a statement of the obvious. Does it change something we've discussed?

Again, the wealthiest Americans don't significantly change their spending habits because they already spend at will. It's the middle class who stimulate the economy with more disposable income.

Since that's not what I said, I don't know how you could conclude that. And the socialism rant was poorly placed, as I am not an advocate of socialism.

And for me, that response doesn't lend a lot of credibility to the inferences you draw from journalists and others. If you so profoundly misinterpret me in this way, why would I expect you to do otherwise with them?

But at any rate, I'd prefer to discuss taxes in a tax thread, not a PBS funding thread.

En'Guard

BTW Bubba is from Stanton Island (that NE bastian of chaw and porch swings) and Mario is from SC.

Welllllll it gets more fun

and as Semi snuck in there amongst our jabbering, the House restored funding.

Wouldn't you have wanted to be the fly on THAT wall.

George: Liberal Facists
Hillary: Right Wing Commie's (I must check which is WHICH!)
George: We want a GOP puppit running CPB and PBS
Hillary: We want the right to whine incessantly about that!

George: Deal
Hillary: Deal
Howard Dean: The GOP wants to keep metrosexuals off PBS. The GOP is ANTI-Metrosexual. Big Bird is a metrosexual. I want to be Big Bird. The Democratic Party needs to appeal to a cross section of muppets.

George: Shut up Howard
Hillary: Shut up Howard

Well Kid Prime: whatever that definition of "balance" was, apparently the politicos are happy about it.

And when there is more money in the economy that is available, they have it. More money is put out there by spending, saving, etc... Look up the multipication factor involved in savings, etc...

Joe said:
"Since that's not what I said, I don't know how you could conclude that. And the socialism rant was poorly placed, as I am not an advocate of socialism. "

but what you said before that was...

"And what's definitely not there is a fair analysis of the impact on even families with a tax break as tax funded services are cut.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the answer is, because this is america, which runs on a capitalist system. The country was started so that you could build wealth and a life not reliant on who your daddy was.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But there's nothing non-capitalist about determining the best place for tax cuts. And strangely enough, the elimination of inheritance taxes does precisely the reverse: it builds wealth based on who your daddy was."

Now, maybe you didn't mean it, but the inference there was that someone, most likely the government, knew the "correct" way to spend money. Sorry, but in a capitalist market, there is no "correct" way. Markets can be impacted by spending, but again, that is a stimulus that inherently warps the system. Supply and demand economics naturally search for equilibrium. When you start using social forces on an economic animal, you pervert that system and most often wind up with results that, while good intentioned, do more harm than good.

As to a lot of people disagreeing about economics, thats true...when you start adding in social factors and philosophy. The basic tennants are true no matter what political bent someone has. Only the interpretation is open to question. And the first time you start to interpret on anything other than the science it is based on, you are getting into philosophy. Deciding that taxes can better be spent one way over another is a social perversion of a working science. That is what i was saying.

As to the taxes in this thread, where do you think that government support for PBS comes from? Taxes that belong to you, me, and everyone else that pays them. See, thats the thing as i have worked it out. The tax amounts this country spends are simply too big to be relatable to the average...(forgive me) Joe. That is not the governments money. It is not even the "people's" money...it is the taxpayer's money. I think the definition has, over the years, been blurred to the point where when people hear the terms "taxpayer" or "people's", the shift into a form of socialist thinking without realizing it. It becomes like a large kitty in a poker pot, with people not understanding that it is, until won (spent) individual taxpayers monies.

Over time, a socialist bent has developed in America that people don't realize. But when you start talking about taking tax money from one group more than another, you are talking socialism. Communism is the ultimate outgrowth.

But, the problem is, where do you stop? Where is the line where you say..."This is your money, you have earned it, i do not have a right to take it from you."? Is it $100? A thousand, 17 million?

So, whether you realize it or not, you, and every american, including me, that thinks it okay to take even one dollar more than what is required for the government to do the basic job for which it was established, the defense of the country and the basic infrastructure, is thinking in a socialist manner. If you believe in Social Security, you believe in socialism. If you believe in welfare, you believe in socialism. I you believe in medicare or medicade, in hospitals that give aid to the indigent, you believe in socialism.

Hell, i believe in it to a certain degree because i do not want to see those that are willing, but absolutely cannot do for some reason or another, do without.

We all advocate it. The difference is in the degree to which we do.

Ummm, ummm, but it IS the peoples' money, every deflated bit of it, whether they paid taxes EVER or not. Consistent logic would seem to suggest that you're advocating that those that pay MORE taxes (to PBS: on topic should have a larger say?

Nah, I know that's not what you meant.

Right. And expecting such analysis from the press is not a call for socialism - it's a call for crutiny from the press on the claims by the administration.

Of course there is. We don't have pure capitalism and never had. But we do have a tax system, and it's the job of government to make decisions about it. And one hopes that will be the BEST (my original word) way based on the information at hand.

Indeed. But where and when tax cuts occur is a very different topic than whether PBS is a good place to invest those $.

Yes and no. The government is composed of the elected representatives of the people to - among other things - sort of the spending of that money. And to the degree that government IS the people, it is the government's responsibility.

And not just the taxpayers either.

When you talk about where to spend the tax revenues, you are talking governing. And EVERYONE talkks taxing one group more than another, whether it be more as a flat amount or more as a percentage of income. It will always be more from someone than from someone else.

And if we all agreed on the basic infrastructure you'd have more of a point.

But even if you're right - if the electorate chooses socialism or modified capitalism, that is the choice of the people.

And by every available indicator, the people approve of PBS and consider it a good investment.

Now wouldn't that be interesting?

I would very much like to see what a US budget would look like if the taxpayers had a direct say in tax spending commensurate to the amount they pay in. Consider it an Elseworlds sort of thing.

I think we were at cross purposes on the "correct" way. the correct way is to pay only for those things the government was put in place for. Unless capitalism is left to the markets alone, and "social" programs are left off, you don't have modified capitalism, you have socialism.

To come along later and modify the original setup is to spiral, however slowly, away from capitalism. And frankly the thought of a nanny state, with braindead government beauracrats determining what is best for individuals instead of the individuals themselves is...frankly repulsive to me. Such systems are not set up to help people, but to perpetuate government, and to make it easier for them to operate. Now, a certain amount of this may be necessary for the basic functions, but i humbly submit that a nanny state is not a basic function, but a perversion of the system set up to allow an individual his or her own manifest destiny. In that, some people will prosper, some will fail. And here is where one of the basic tennant of conservatism comes into play, each and every individual is to be responsible for his or her actions. When government starts making those decisions for you, then no one has responsibility. When no one is responsible, the inevitable degradation of services and society follows. I site Rome.

As to it being the governments money, again, i disagree. It is the individual taxpayers contributions to the running of the state. At no point in time was the government ment to "have" money. Government is supposed to be a zero sum gain. Instead, it has become the single greatest economic force on the planet. Part of this is the incredibly irresponsible spending of the last fifty years, BECAUSE government has achieved a state of non-responsibility.

As to the tax cuts affecting PBS, as long as it is funded by taxpayer monies, it does come under scrutiny, and as such, it IS a good place to discuss tax cuts. Right or wrong, any and everything funded by taxpayer money should be scrutinized. PBS was a nice idea that got away from its charter when it started, conciously or not, advocating a political bent over another.

Therefore, as a majority of "People" voted for a party that is supposed to be fiscally responsive to the needs of the country, they have not only a right to look at funding, but a duty.

I just wish that more Repubs on the federal level had the balls to actually do what they were sent there to do. America has been through a highly stressful financial crisis in the last four years. Magnanimous spending, even to aid the lesser fortunate that need it, is going to lead to financial collapse. Like it or not, if not cuts, but simple freezes, will go a long way to restoring fiscal stability that has been lost in the last fifty years.

Yes, sometimes, spending and deficits are needed, but they should never be more than short term as i see it, which means five years. Thats not the definition in financial circles of "short term", but it simply makes the most economical sense to me.

Rick, you've come full-circle, back to your original claim that PBS has somehow "gotten away from its charter."

What you haven't done is provided any support for that claim other than your own opinion.

(As a side note, I also point out that the U.S. is founded on democracy, not capitalism; there's nothing in the Constitution that requires our society to have a pure-capitalist, socialist, or mixed-capitalist economy at all. Nowhere does the Constitution suggest that laissez-faire should be the "default" mode of running our economy.)

But back to the main point: what can you offer as proof for your claim that PBS has strayed from its original charter and become a political advocacy organization? Joe has provided evidence to the contrary, but I haven't seen any on your end yet.

Hey, and if George and Hillary are happy...

Well, let's be honest. The chances of George and Hillary being happy in the same room are about the same as the annual war between the universities of Tennessee and Alabama on the third Saturday of October being civil and sportsmanlike.

Still, we can dream.

Not to quibble, but are we descending into minutia here? It doesn't seem like this discussion is really about much of anything anymore.

Not to mention spending 200 billion on a conflict that Wolfowitz originally estimated would take 100 billion, tops to see through. That kind of projectional planning would get a guy fired in the private sector, you know.

Calybos, sorry, but while i respect Joe tremendously, he puts too much faith in the "research" of others. The type of bias i am talking about is an ephemeral one, i think we can agree. His research is something trying to quantify attitudes and perceptions. And while pollsters like to think they can do that, and sometimes they even get it right, its mostly luck of the draw as far as i can tell.

Those that listen and agree with the unconcious bias of PBS are gonna say "Hey, they're great. No bias that i can see.". Those that merely pass through on occassion are less likely to hear it. Those that listen to NPR for two hours every weekday morning, an hour in the afternoons, and on the weekends sometimes, like i do, that think for themselves, and know how to do more than just "hear" can easily pick it up.

And of course, you can say its only "anecdotal", or my opinion, but, my opinion is just as right as those that agree with the slant that PBS and NPR have taken over the years. Statistics can easily be made to lie, and a poll is worth the toilet paper it is taken on, on both sides.

Many people like to try to guess what the pollster wants to hear, many play dumb, and many are just smart asses. Unless you can read minds, polls are sewage, sorry.

I agree. However, WWII cost much more than FDR's folks thought it would, didn't it?

Like i said, the 'short term', using my definition, shouldn't take more than five years to cover. And i did agree above that the spending was too much, even though necessary.

Just as no battle plan has ever survived the actual engagement, no spending plan has ever survived the battle and the pork barrel.

I'd say the "correct way" is to pay for those things the people determiner they wish to pay for.

This is the nature of democracy.

And through the government, the people determine the tax code structure and the spending of the revenues raised through it.

The government doesn't "HAVE" anything. It is just the mechanism through which the PEOPLE manage THEIR resources.

No one suggested that PBS not be scrutinized.

What I have said is that the tax code and who gets which tax breaks is a separate issue.

Now we're back on topic.

Though you and others have claimed this, I've yet to see any empirical data to support the claim. To the contrary, all the empirical data I know of suggests just the opposite.

Actually I have no faith in anything. That's why data is important.

Your feelings of ephemeral bias are, and I say this respectfully, worthless. As are any individual's. Decisions are properly made with data to suppport them, especially when managing public resources.

You can't demonstrate the bias, and even when perception of that bias is sought it can't be found. In fact quite the opposite is found.

Does anyone think Tomlinson would have buried the polling results if they confirmed a perception of bias?

It's fine if you don't like or agree with the polling, but I ask you to suggest another way to get data to support a decision.

And i think it is known that data can be misinterpreted, subverted, and skewed.

Empirical data is just data. The interpretation of data is what makes the difference between a computer, which can't think for itself, and a human, which can. Sorry, Joe, but the continual call for "data" when we are talking about the ephemeral is just as silly as me asking Harvey Firestien if he has stopped beating his wife.

You say you have faith in nothing, but thats not true, is it. You have 'faith' in data.

And just because the regular masses don't 'perceive' a bias doesn't mean it isn't there. Regular people didnt' perceive a bias on the parts of abc, cbs, and nbc for years before it was established that there was one. Thats just so much gobbledygook. It reminds me of kelsey grammar's role in that movie "the pentagon wars" or something of that title.

And don't take this as a personal shot, please. we just have different ideas as to what to believe and who is believable.

That's why you use good methodology. It's why you use reliable pollers with a good and proven track record.

What, do you not think individual perceptions can be skewed?

Incorrect. There is data. More can be gathered. It is gathered by professionals with proven track records. This is standard in business, government and healthcare.

Incorrect again. Data - well gathered and measured - is our best source. Does tat mean it's perfect or infallible? Nope - just means it's the best and MOST reliable option we've got.

But it hasn't been "established" that there was or is a bias. There are a number of disgruntled people claiming there is.

Now, in the absence of an emperor or divinely gifted objective knowledge, through what means do you propose bias be measured?

And if the PEOPLE don't perceive a bias why should their opinion count for less than yours?

Never said it did, just that people invested in something have a tendancy to lie to themselves. The best and the worst of us do that. Me included.

And again, its just a poll. You are presuming that the data is as honest and true as it can be. I make no such presumptions. I automatically assume that polls are skewed for many reasons. Unconcious bias on the part of the poll taker, bias on the part of those polled, perceptions factored into it....

There were just too many examples of "professional" polls taken by groups like MSNBC and others during the last election that allowed them to trumpet headlines that were accurate, as they perceived them. But when you started to delve into the data, and you started taking into account the 'methodology' of the questioning, they rapidly broke down.

I remember vaguely a poll about Kerry and Bush in California, i think it was. Kerry was hailed as having an 11 point lead or something in some group. But when the info was broken down, the numbers didn't add up.

You put to much faith in the objectivity of those saying they are objective. Life has taught me not to.

And the phrase "best and MOST"...just isn't good enough for me. Sorry.

Are you saying polls are unreliable? Some pollsters have exceptionally good track records of accurately reflecting sentiment.

There is a reason that so many businesses use them to direct sales and marketing: they work. There is a reason both democrats and republican use them: they work.

I'd be glad to see where their methodology broke down "in the data". Please provide specifics.

But more importantly: in the absence of divinely granted objectivity by what means do you believe bias can be measured in PBS or other sources.

On what, other than your say so, do you believe decisions should be based?

I'd like popcorn and a big thing of Milk Duds, please.

Cookie Monster would also like you to have some vegetables, please.

Could someone itemize or bulletize that "evidence" provided by Joe that refutes PBS had become a political advocacy group? I'm pretty much just seeing, "show me the evidence." And how would he show that "evidence" anyhow?


What has mostly been pointed out in the thread is the difficulty of defining "balanced." Accounting is impossible. It's a "feeling" not a number.

For me, MY definition of "balance," is the result of debate and vote. Congress would have been remiss to not challenge the funding and force the debate. As situated, checks and balance didn't show. There had not been challenges to programming that I could find during the Clinton era. There was a wave during the term of the elder Bush. None that I could find previous to that.

If correct, that would be a bit disturbing, having that large a chunk of change going undebated.

Bias is anything that is not a clear, uncolored interpretation of the data. I make no such claim for myself. I know that i have a bias. I am human. Every human has a bias.

As for pollsters being successful, or having a successful track record, correct "trackrecords" can be built without actually knowing the way people actually think, perceive, and feel.

As to the polls, i will try to find them. It's been a while and honestly, i don't really follow the mainstream media that much. Thats not me coping out or running. I just find them to mostly be a bunch of liars and frauds, on both sides, and don't really give them the time of day.

Yes, even the fox network has them working for them, lol. I never said they were good, just more balanced in being willing to give both sides of a topic a chance. (Frankly, i think they do that so one side has enough rope to hang themselves, and it sells to those outside the big cities that think they are much better than anyone in the derided "fly over" country.) Fox found a market that was unaddressed, the conservative side, and actually allow its voices to be heard. They are doing pretty well, and groups like cnn have their panties in a wad cause their numbers, and thus profit, are fallin outta their asses.

still, i will try to come up with that poll. Shouldn't be too hard, but then, im basically a technophobe, lol.

Here's one of the first links i pulled up. Yes, i know its from the right, the "Free press", but that don't change actual numbers, lol.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1151389/posts

Hope this link works. I'll keep looking around.

Do you mean other than the polling and repeat polling that Americans perceive PBS to be a reliable source of information and a good investment?

Feelings can be accounted. It's done quite often.

But if it's JUST a feeling people might want to be a little more careful in describing it.

What debate did Congress force? They said this was just part of broader cuts and didn't say anything about issues of political bias.

You have now several times said this was the outcome of PBS failing to meet it's charter - but that's not what Congress has said.