The W
Views: 100232473
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
30.10.07 1058
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - NPR Gets huge lump sum Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(1240 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (23 total)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2422/4700
EXP: 21600701
For next: 235961

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1276 days
Last activity: 1073 days
#1 Posted on 6.11.03 0718.08
Reposted on: 6.11.10 0718.19
In the amount of $200 million from Joan Kroc, the widow of the McDonald's founder and former Padres owner.

Question now becomes: how soon can we get them off of the government dole?
Promote this thread!
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 96/2704
EXP: 8937246
For next: 51573

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#2 Posted on 6.11.03 0947.36
Reposted on: 6.11.10 0953.16
Grimis, last time I checked the amount of government funding was decreasing but I am not sure of the amount. How much funding does NPR receive from Federal sources? I know our local public radio stations receives almost no state or federal funding.

Would I be safe in assuming two things. You don't want any public support for Public radio or TV? You ascribe a liberal bias to them? Maybe you don't.

Personally, I think they provide a great deal for whatever monies they receive. They provide programming, especially on radio, that is available nowhere else. I have never subscribed to the theory that because the market place wont or can't support somethig that it is of no value. If that is how we determine what is put out, we will always subscribe to the lowest common and often inane denominator. Public broadcasting exposes people to culture and events that they may never see or hear otherwise. I watch and listen to news from "Public" broadcasting almost exclusively. Is it perfect, no. Does it upset people, yes. Is it important to have it broadcast through the ether, yes.

Cuture and art have always had to rely on patrons and public support. We would all the poorer without it.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2424/4700
EXP: 21600701
For next: 235961

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1276 days
Last activity: 1073 days
#3 Posted on 6.11.03 0956.43
Reposted on: 6.11.10 0957.21
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    Would I be safe in assuming two things. You don't want any public support for Public radio or TV? You ascribe a liberal bias to them?

You would be safe in assuming the second one. The first one is a more of a definition of what "public support" is. If "public support" means the federal government doleso ut taxpayer dollars to help fund them, then no I do not believe that should get the support; there is no usefulness. But if they were exclusively funded by private donations or state governments, I would be fine; that doesn't violate the Constitution. It's not a "bias" issue(they could run hours of Goldwater speeches in a row and I'd still oppose the fundng), it's a Consitutional one.

    Originally posted by DrDirt
    Cuture and art have always had to rely on patrons and public support. We would all the poorer without it.
Agreed, but that support should not come out of the public treasury either.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 99/2704
EXP: 8937246
For next: 51573

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#4 Posted on 6.11.03 1012.14
Reposted on: 6.11.10 1014.10
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      Would I be safe in assuming two things. You don't want any public support for Public radio or TV? You ascribe a liberal bias to them?

    You would be safe in assuming the second one. The first one is a more of a definition of what "public support" is. If "public support" means the federal government doleso ut taxpayer dollars to help fund them, then no I do not believe that should get the support; there is no usefulness. But if they were exclusively funded by private donations or state governments, I would be fine; that doesn't violate the Constitution. It's not a "bias" issue(they could run hours of Goldwater speeches in a row and I'd still oppose the fundng), it's a Consitutional one.

      Originally posted by DrDirt
      Cuture and art have always had to rely on patrons and public support. We would all the poorer without it.
    Agreed, but that support should not come out of the public treasury either.


On your first point, I agree that would be preferable. But with the many items the governement suports and congress members from both sides push, this is a better use of federal monies than most and allows for people in poorer economic situations to have exposure to things they would otherwise never know of.

A society is judged on two things. How it treats its young and elderly and its body of art and culture. With the miniscule amount of money this takes from the treasury it is one of the best uses of public monies I can think of.

Finally, I have never understood the logic of "if its not specifically stated in the constituion, the government can't do it." Unless it is specifically prohibited, why can't the government do it?
Davros
Blutwurst
Level: 35

Posts: 217/251
EXP: 265325
For next: 14613

Since: 22.8.02
From: Between thought and Reality, TZ

Since last post: 2665 days
Last activity: 2660 days
#5 Posted on 6.11.03 1025.18
Reposted on: 6.11.10 1029.01
"Finally, I have never understood the logic of "if its not specifically stated in the constituion, the government can't do it." Unless it is specifically prohibited, why can't the government do it?"

Bingo. Once again, the good Doctor has it to where I need not reply. I just wanted to state that I agree.
Government needs to stop with the standpoint of we can't do this because, to let's see how we can do this because...
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2426/4700
EXP: 21600701
For next: 235961

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1276 days
Last activity: 1073 days
#6 Posted on 6.11.03 1043.11
Reposted on: 6.11.10 1045.58
    Originally posted by Davros
    Government needs to stop with the standpoint of we can't do this because, to let's see how we can do this because...

That's the problem with government. It just DOES without looking at the ramifications or legalities of it. Half of the Federal Government in unconstitutional. That's why taxes are so high and government wastes so much...
Davros
Blutwurst
Level: 35

Posts: 218/251
EXP: 265325
For next: 14613

Since: 22.8.02
From: Between thought and Reality, TZ

Since last post: 2665 days
Last activity: 2660 days
#7 Posted on 6.11.03 1220.17
Reposted on: 6.11.10 1223.39
Disagree. Taxes are high and govt. wastes so much because of coughhomelandcoughsecuritycough. Do the math, read the numbers. (Yet, we still have military personnel on govt. assistance...)

I agree with half of the govt. being unconstitutional, but for you sake, and for this forum's sanity, I will not open that can of worms.

Florida.

Okay-- so maybe that can I opened...just a little
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 102/2704
EXP: 8937246
For next: 51573

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#8 Posted on 6.11.03 1422.18
Reposted on: 6.11.10 1429.03
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by Davros
      Government needs to stop with the standpoint of we can't do this because, to let's see how we can do this because...

    That's the problem with government. It just DOES without looking at the ramifications or legalities of it. Half of the Federal Government in unconstitutional. That's why taxes are so high and government wastes so much...


Grimis, what specifically is unconstitutional. I am not baiting you. I hear Rush and Hannity rail on this constantly. If what is purported to be unconstitutional is then so is the governement in my bedroom, the government being the drug police and many other things that seem appropriate. The FDA, EPA, FBI, FCC, FAA, and other agencies would seem to be unconstitutional with this logic.

You are right in the the government usually doesn't explore the law of unintended consequences before it acts. The waste isn't usually because the goal is inappropriate but that the execution is flawed and emotion (by both sides) rules instead of the facts.

edit stupid typos

(edited by DrDirt on 6.11.03 1716)
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 213

Posts: 3196/16320
EXP: 143048765
For next: 318142

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 8 hours
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#9 Posted on 6.11.03 1707.39
Reposted on: 6.11.10 1711.34
    Originally posted by Davros
    Disagree. Taxes are high and govt. wastes so much because of coughhomelandcoughsecuritycough. Do the math, read the numbers. (Yet, we still have military personnel on govt. assistance...)

    I agree with half of the govt. being unconstitutional, but for you sake, and for this forum's sanity, I will not open that can of worms.

    Florida.

    Okay-- so maybe that can I opened...just a little
Stop.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 917/1528
EXP: 4087706
For next: 103442

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2837 days
Last activity: 2679 days
AIM:  
#10 Posted on 6.11.03 1735.23
Reposted on: 6.11.10 1736.13
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    "Finally, I have never understood the logic of "if its not specifically stated in the constituion, the government can't do it." Unless it is specifically prohibited, why can't the government do it?"


Possibly because the government is incapable of doing anything (other than conducting a war) effectively and efficiently.

And if that answer doesn't satisfy you, how about "Because I don't want it to." What gives you (in the form of the gov't) the right to take my wealth, my property, and by extension my freedom and allocate it elsewhere?
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1493/2108
EXP: 6620797
For next: 29893

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 19 hours
#11 Posted on 6.11.03 2132.06
Reposted on: 6.11.10 2135.26
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by Davros
      Government needs to stop with the standpoint of we can't do this because, to let's see how we can do this because...

    That's the problem with government. It just DOES without looking at the ramifications or legalities of it. Half of the Federal Government in unconstitutional. That's why taxes are so high and government wastes so much...


You know, the people charged BY the COnstitution with actually determining these things disagree with you.

Possibly because the government is incapable of doing anything (other than conducting a war) effectively and efficiently.

And if that answer doesn't satisfy you, how about "Because I don't want it to." What gives you (in the form of the gov't) the right to take my wealth, my property, and by extension my freedom and allocate it elsewhere?


I know, nobody uses that Federal Highway System, or ever bought a house with a V.A. mortgage.

For conservatives "Government," seems to mean "Everything about America that doesn't benefit me."

What gives you? That question is what gives us, because that's who this government is. You're not living in the Soviet Union, or Saudi Arabia, or Pinochet's Chile. This is a democracy. We vote on our government. If you hate this system so much, I suggest you move to your own little Island somewhere where you can keep all your stuff. Honestly, if you have such contempt toward our system of government, this isn't Cuba. You can leave whenever you like.

(edited by MoeGates on 6.11.03 2249)
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong




Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 10 hours
Last activity: 8 hours
#12 Posted on 6.11.10 2303.13
    Originally posted by MoeGates

    I know, nobody uses that Federal Highway System, or ever bought a house with a V.A. mortgage.



Or, you know, that stupid thing they wasted money on called the Internet. I know *I'll* never use that!
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2428/4700
EXP: 21600701
For next: 235961

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1276 days
Last activity: 1073 days
#13 Posted on 7.11.03 0644.39
Reposted on: 7.11.10 0645.04
    Originally posted by MoeGates
    This is a democracy.
No it's not. This is a Constitutional Republic. That's part of our problem in society is that nobody knows what our system of government is. Everybody thinks that it's a Democracy which gives these peoplecarte blanche to do whatever the hell the people want regardless of the cost or legality of it all(EX: prescription drugs). THOSE are the people who hold our system of government in contempt.

Incidentally, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting got $362.5 million in taxpayer dollars from the Feds. Think that's not a tad too much?
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 109/2704
EXP: 8937246
For next: 51573

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#14 Posted on 7.11.03 0918.54
Reposted on: 7.11.10 0919.18
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by MoeGates
      This is a democracy.
    No it's not. This is a Constitutional Republic. That's part of our problem in society is that nobody knows what our system of government is. Everybody thinks that it's a Democracy which gives these peoplecarte blanche to do whatever the hell the people want regardless of the cost or legality of it all(EX: prescription drugs). THOSE are the people who hold our system of government in contempt.

    Incidentally, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting got $362.5 million in taxpayer dollars from the Feds. Think that's not a tad too much?


Grimis, thanks for the number. I assume that includes money for both radio and TV. That works out to a buck and change for each citizen. Seem like a good deal to me. I can undertand that with you beliefs it is still unacceptable. And thank God this is not a pure democracy since no country on earth is ready yet. Hopefully someday but not now.

Palp, afew more examples, the war on polio, small pox, and other diseases. We have been hammered as a people since 1980 that government is incapable of doing ANYTHING properly. If this is the case, why do those who hammer that home, Conservatives, work so hard to be in charge. Don't tell me it is to downsize because they don't do it. They enact programs for the government to help us. Don't tell me it is to insure that the goverment only do what it is specifically, constitutionally charged with doing. They are doing things well beyond that.

Does government screw things up. All the time. Does it do some thngs quite well. All the time.

Moes correct, we are the government. By damning it, you damn all of us.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2434/4700
EXP: 21600701
For next: 235961

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1276 days
Last activity: 1073 days
#15 Posted on 7.11.03 1038.01
Reposted on: 7.11.10 1038.27
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    Moes correct, we are the government. By damning it, you damn all of us.

But should we not be damned? For putting up with this garbage from both sides? For demanding that our government give us more and more while doing less and less for ourselves? For our apathy towards the political process? For reality television?
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 111/2704
EXP: 8937246
For next: 51573

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#16 Posted on 7.11.03 1121.43
Reposted on: 7.11.10 1128.15
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      Moes correct, we are the government. By damning it, you damn all of us.

    But should we not be damned? For putting up with this garbage from both sides? For demanding that our government give us more and more while doing less and less for ourselves? For our apathy towards the political process? For reality television?



Yes and no. The real area that we deserve to be damned in is our apathy as a whole. I trace this to two things. One, our educational system sucks when it comes to civics and the responsibilites incumbent on any citizen. And parents don't seem inclined to do it. Combine this with our illeteracy as a society of history and you get to the point where some think the government should run their lives. Two, most people want to be left alone and if they cannot see the direct impact something makes on their lives, they don't care. Local elections probably have more impact on their lives than the feds and they don't know the issues or the candidates. Maybe three, in spite of the present economic difficulties and terrorism, most people's lives are okay and if they don't feel threatened, they don't care. It's wrong but it is the way it is.

And if most people thought about it, no, they don't want the govenment doing more and more. Much of this has crept into their lives due to apathy. I chose to not allow the government to do any more for me than necessary and the key is getting us to simply say no, I will control my life.

I really believe that in many ways we as a society get the government we deserve. Not as individuals but as a society.
Michrome
Head cheese
Level: 39

Posts: 296/330
EXP: 393945
For next: 10830

Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3839 days
Last activity: 2906 days
#17 Posted on 7.11.03 1439.53
Reposted on: 7.11.10 1439.53
When the constitution was formed, the founders argued that no Bill Of Rights was necessary because Article 1, Section 8 listed all of the federal government's powers, and the right to restrict certain liberties was not listed.

This is the basis for the ideology that anything not specifically accounted for in Article 1, Section 8 is unconstitutional and ought not exist.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 116/2704
EXP: 8937246
For next: 51573

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#18 Posted on 7.11.03 1621.07
Reposted on: 7.11.10 1624.57
    Originally posted by Michrome
    When the constitution was formed, the founders argued that no Bill Of Rights was necessary because Article 1, Section 8 listed all of the federal government's powers, and the right to restrict certain liberties was not listed.

    This is the basis for the ideology that anything not specifically accounted for in Article 1, Section 8 is unconstitutional and ought not exist.


Yes and no. Some of the founding fathers felt that way but not all. The first ten amendments were necessary to secure enough states to pass the constitution. There were founders who felt we must insure a minimal centralized government and essentially remain a confederation. A concept mainly of southerners that in many ways ultimately led to the Civil War or War of Northern Agression depending on yor point of view. There were also founders at the polar opposite who believed that only a strong central government would insure the success of the nation. This was clarified during the first few decades of the country as it became more and more clear that a strong central government was needed for the U.S. to survive and ths was essentially codified as a result of the Civil War. The vagueness was built in to allow for our system to evelve and it did. Not always for the best but overall, well.

The founders produced a flexible document that has overall done a marvelous job of giving us a system that works and is flexible. The times it doesn't is when we tried things such as prohibition.
Michrome
Head cheese
Level: 39

Posts: 297/330
EXP: 393945
For next: 10830

Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3839 days
Last activity: 2906 days
#19 Posted on 7.11.03 1630.25
Reposted on: 7.11.10 1631.14
No, they didn't give us a "flexible document" that could be interpreted to mean whatever you want it to mean. They put in an ammendment process for a reason, and they made it hard to do for a reason. Key founders like Madison argued against the need for a Bill Of Rights for that very reason, but conceeded in order to win the ratification of key states, as you pointed out. Article 1, Section 8 lists the enumerated powers of the federal government specifically. If they meant for the federal government's powers to cover everything, they would not have had an enumerated powers section where they specifically lay everything out. The fact that many have used the elastic clause as justification for federal powers that would have caused revolution in the early days of the country does not change the original meaning or intent of the document. The tenth ammendment is very clear. All powers not specifically given to the federal government in the constitution are reserved for the states or for the people. Whether or not you like this isn't the issue.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 118/2704
EXP: 8937246
For next: 51573

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#20 Posted on 7.11.03 1706.52
Reposted on: 7.11.10 1707.18
Michrome, flexible may be a poor choice of words. They wrote a document that allowed for the evolution of our federal government. They could not have imagined the world today and how vastly diiferent it would become. It is not a question of what I like or don't like.
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Dean Chided Over Confederate Flag Remark
Next thread: Memogate
Previous thread: Economic growth strongest in two decades
(1240 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - NPR Gets huge lump sumRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.257 seconds.