BoatShoes;705181 wrote:I don't know I'd rather have a news organization be supported by tax dollars providing some incentive to stay unbiased than get all of its funding from say, George Soros, and have only an incentive to promote his "anti-american, anti-white male, anti-christian socialist/marxist anti-nascar" worldview.

But as a practical matter, NPR receives no direct funding from the Congress. See the link

hubbub.wbur.org/2010/10/22/npr-funding

Footwedge;705184 wrote:Fair enough. However I would question your choice of words in using "pretense". Sort of like the "pretense" that Rupert Murdoch's show is "fair and balanced"...no?

fan_from_texas;705206 wrote:I don't watch Fox News (I've seen about 10 mins of it in my life), so I don't think I'm qualified to comment on the "fair and balanced" aspect. I get virtually all of my (non-industry) news from The Economist, The Atlantic, CNN, and NPR.

Re "pretense," my experience with NPR is that they often will bring on an expert representing each side, which gives them the appearance of being neutral. But much of being neutral is in how the question is framed--e.g., "Is our society doing enough to address racially disparate economic outcomes" vs "Despite that fact that blacks score worse on standardized tests, should society continue to give handouts to make them whole?" You can bring on experts to discuss both questions, but the way the question is framed reveals a clear bias.

I don't think many NPR people are intentionally attempting to slant the news to the left--I don't think they're generally ill-intentioned. The problem, as I see it, is that their worldview clouds their judgment and makes it tough for them to realize when they're not being even-handed. That's part of human nature, and I don't think there's any easy fix to it.

In my experience, even with NPR's left-leaning bias, I appreciate that they have more variety than most other news shows, so I continue to listen. I don't like the idea of using taxpayer money to fund any news organization, so I'm sympathetic to people who want to pull their funding. But I'd be much more sympathetic if there were better, "more neutral" options out there.

CenterBHSFan;705078 wrote:To me I don't care if the news is right or left - what business is it of our government to donate monies to it?

Footwedge;705239 wrote:You know....I did a little googling on this topic....and here....by a 2 to 1 margin, think tanks complained that NPR is too conservative versus the other way around.

I listened to NPR quite a bit back between 2004 and 2008. My take was that they were conservative, but fair in at least presenting a dissenting view.

Perception comes in many different flavors I guess.

Belly35;705189 wrote:OMG ..... We agree.............

stlouiedipalma;705600 wrote:I know, Belly, this is a momentous occasion.

I'd also like to take it one giant step further and shut down all military operations outside of the United States and put an end to any money being sent to foreign countries. Until we solve our problems at home, I say we should let everyone else fend for themselves.

Belly35;705673 wrote:To far.... back to square one

Military operation hold steady
Foreign funds can be re-evaluated and cut back
Home problem do need to be fixed .... I would like to see a change in the allocation of Small Business Federal Money… “Belly Business Idea Plan” BBIP
would fix the job and future of America..

cbus4life;705964 wrote:NPR will continue to exist, regardless of whether they have the small amount of funding they get through the CPB cut or not, so for all i care, Congress can go ahead. Though it will end up hurting folks who have nothing to do with NPR, didn't fire Juan Williams or call the tea party "racist," etc.

I understand why people are "going after" NPR, but it is tremendous waste of time, IMO. Just another way for folks to score some political points. Common sense should tell people that their time should be spent going after wasteful things THAT ACTUALLY RECEIVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF FEDERAL FUNDING.

I Wear Pants;705683 wrote:Can we keep the non news related programming of NPR? Because that's fantastic.

Just spin off the news into a non-profit. Seems reasonable.

And Belly, all your positions would seem to say that you wouldn't want any federal money in business at any level. Funny though that you're in support of federal money being used in a way that would be beneficial to you (I don't know how you'd like it allocated so if I assumed incorrectly there please correct my error).

I want less government in business ( less the better) but there comes a point when the spending of our tax money is wasted, small business have gotten to a point desperation and support from the government is required to make America Small Business Viable.

89 million give to NPR ..( free)
I have spent of my personal money $200,000 for my new product r/d.
To product this product molds and tooling is required …. (forget about the engineering/design and testing cost)
Tooling and molds cost in America ($300,000) cost in China ($30,000)
China government invests in China business sure their labor force works for less but that can be over come with America productivity.
China now produces this product for my retail customer base.
Note: This product I can re-program here in the states and sell to custom designer at a higher profit. Again this will take me investing in my company to do but it can be done at a high profit margin.
Note: If the tooling and mold cost was subsidizes (free) then the manufacturing production would also be done in the states.
I have taken about 20% of my present products and converted manufacturing back to the state. Those products are just as profitable as those manufactured in China.
Why you ask I haven’t converted more …. Re-tooling and molds cost too much ….
American manufacturing and labor can compete with the $7.00 day China labor.
Note: In the future that cheap China labor will not be so cheap ….. will America be prepared???

In the long run giving free subsidizes to manufacturing and product driven companies will come full circle with more people working, product being purchased and revenue produced via taxes on products sold. Local, Sate and Feds all win ..

Giving money to individuals does not stimulate the economy ..it just pays for what they spent they did have…

Free money to those organizations that produce nothing but lip service… spews waste

cbus4life;705964 wrote:NPR will continue to exist, regardless of whether they have the small amount of funding they get through the CPB cut or not, so for all i care, Congress can go ahead. Though it will end up hurting folks who have nothing to do with NPR, didn't fire Juan Williams or call the tea party "racist," etc.

I understand why people are "going after" NPR, but it is tremendous waste of time, IMO. Just another way for folks to score some political points. Common sense should tell people that their time should be spent going after wasteful things THAT ACTUALLY RECEIVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF FEDERAL FUNDING.

Gblock;706112 wrote:while ill agree the govt doesnt need to fund them...doesnt mean his comments were incorrect

During the secretly recorded meeting, Schiller lamented how the Republican Party had been "hijacked" by the Tea Party.

"The current Republican Party, particularly the Tea Party, is fanatically involved with people's personal lives," he said.

Schiller described that movement as "white, middle America, gun-toting," and added: "They're seriously racist people."

Fab4Runner;706116 wrote:So unless I am misunderstanding you...you actually believe this?

stlouiedipalma;706111 wrote:I'll agree to that, but it must be everything, not just a few pet social issues. let's start with the military, SS, Medicare & Medicaid. That would show everyone that we're serious about getting things under control.

stlouiedipalma;705600 wrote:I'd also like to take it one giant step further and shut down all military operations outside of the United States and put an end to any money being sent to foreign countries. Until we solve our problems at home, I say we should let everyone else fend for themselves.

stlouiedipalma;706111 wrote:I'll agree to that, but it must be everything, not just a few pet social issues. let's start with the military, SS, Medicare & Medicaid. That would show everyone that we're serious about getting things under control.