Repeal? Cut? Shutdown?

Discussion in 'Economy' started by Flanders, Aug 31, 2012.

  1. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,584
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,588
    Obamacare has to be repealed. Romney’s comments are a breath of fresh air, but I wish he would have said repeal Obamacare instead saying “cut.” Congressional Republicans appear to be committed to repeal; so let’s say the word “cut” was a slip of the tongue. As to the other “cuts”:

    Bush the Younger with a Republican Congress could not stop the PBS subsidy. In the same vain, I don’t know how many times I’ve heard Republicans say they would shutdown the Department of Education. Ronald Reagan wanted to do it and he couldn’t. Still, Romney gets high marks if he is serious about the four he listed. The thing that puzzles me is his avoidance of the world “shutdown.” Let’s face it, “shutdown” is a positive word when you are talking about federal bureaucracies and programs

    The fact is: PBS and Amtrak could continue as private sector businesses, while the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities cannot transmute into profit-motive entities because they are federal bureaucracies that produce nothing of value —— their primary financial function is paying bureaucratic salaries and benefits. They either have to be shutdown, or become charities surviving on VOLUNTARY contributions. I don’t see charitable entities in the cards even though donations would be tax deductible. Ultimately, tax deductions are passed onto the backs of all taxpayers. That is no bargain to be sure, but a tax deduction is nowhere near as bad as direct tax dollar funding and subsidies.

    PBS can rightly be called an arm of the Department of Education using tax dollars to promote a political philosophy that most Americans do not subscribe to:


    Romney Wants to End Federal Funding of Public TV
    Cliff Kincaid Thursday, August 30, 2012

    Romney Wants to End Federal Funding of Public TV

    Subsidizing PBS in any amount is no different than tax dollars funding the propaganda efforts of every violent religion, every evil cult, and every crackpot ideology that comes along. If forcing one group to subsidize the political ideology of another group isn’t a violation of the First Amendment there is no logical justification for the first ten words in the First Amendment:

    I’ll give Romney the benefit of the doubt and assume he will attempt to enforce the First Amendment where others failed. Should he succeed, one can only pray it won’t turn out to be rerun of ACORN’s lost subsidy; i.e., say funding has ended but do not actually stop it.

    Parenthetically, Planned Parenthood is another subsidy joke. It’s against the law to pay for abortions with tax dollars, but Planned Parenthood is still getting tens of millions a year.

    Finally, I could not have written this message had Michele Bachmann won the nomination. She does not mince words:


     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2012
  2. oldfart
    Offline

    oldfart Older than dirt

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,354
    Thanks Received:
    462
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Redneck Riviera
    Ratings:
    +527
    Mr. Rogers is very disappointed with you. And you have made Big Bird sad. They say you do not remember the bargain you struck in the earlier days of television. Originally an FCC license specified that a certain number of hours a week must be devoted to quality children's programming. That produced syndicated programs like "Romper Room." But when the cereal companies found out how much money they could make pitching chocolate flavored sugar-coated gut bombs to three year olds, they wanted the air time for cartoons and their commercials. So they agreed to help fund PBS and we got the Children's Television Workshop.

    I get it. You don't like PBS. As you note, PBS could probably do very well as a non-profit in today's markets with today's technology and I prsonally think that we are a decade past the point where PBS should have told Congress to shove it up their collective asses and just cut PBS loose. And of course the Christian Broadcasting Network and Bill O'Reilly are perfectly free to start right-wing children's programming if they feel the need. We have to give something back to the next generation of Billo clowns.

    I agree that all arts and humanities programs could be shifted to public non-profits. Let the rich pay for their own ballet, even if they get a tax deduction for it. All of this is a miniscule drop in the budgetary bucket. How do you feel about cuts in the corporate pork? Do we really need to subsidize advertising overseas for American exports, for example?

    Jamie
     
  3. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,584
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,588
    To oldfart: I did not strike a bargain with anyone. Ditto tens of millions of Americans like me who thought a government television network was a bad idea. At the time, everybody with an ounce of brains knew tax dollars would fund the Left’s propaganda.

    To oldfart: Let’s all genuflect. Here comes the children! Whenever liberal parasites see one of their seats at the public trough threatened they save the children —— except when they want to slaughter children in the womb. Then it’s the mothers they are concerned about. I’ll go out on a limb here and say you are a liberal.

    As to quality programming I repeat:


    To oldfart: Parents buy cereals not three year olds.

    And you neglected to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars made by the owners marketing toys, books, and games based on the characters in programs. The owners pocket those millions thanks to free advertising, or to be more precise tax dollars pay for the advertising in part and the owners walk away with pure profits.


    To oldfart: What tipped you off?

    To oldfart: I did not say non-profits. I said “PBS and Amtrak could continue as private sector businesses, . . .”.

    To oldfart: I’m no fan of Bill O’Reilly, but if you want to be critical of him you should look into Bill Moyers and some of the PBS steadies. Moyers became a multimillionaire off of Public Television. If I remember correctly it is a family business. His son did well, too.

    To oldfart: Nice try. It is the bureaucracies that have to be shutdown. Then let the programs find sponsors in the marketplace.

    To oldfart: If it is so miniscule why does the Corporation for Public Broadcasting lobby so hard to hang onto it?

    To oldfart: Let’s cut to the chase. Tax dollars should only be used for the operation of necessary government. I’ll assume you know what constitutes necessary government. If not, here’s a clue: If it is not clearly enumerated in the Constitution it is not necessary OR CONSTITUTIONAL.
     
  4. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    27,636
    Thanks Received:
    1,133
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,067
    its too trivial to think about!! The cuts need to be in the fast growing and huge welfare entitlements the liberals use to buy votes and subvert our democracy!!

    "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
    -Benjamin Franklin
     
  5. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,584
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,588
    To EdwardBaiamonte: Shortcut: Repeal the XVI Amendment.
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2012
  6. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    27,636
    Thanks Received:
    1,133
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,067
    I'd be ok with that too!!!!!
     
  7. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,584
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,588
    Somewhere in the past day or so I heard FOX’s Bret Hume say he did not know why Romney hasn’t broken out yet, or words to that effect. Far be it from me to advise Mr. Hume, but he might listen to educator Charlotte Cushman:

    September 10, 2012
    Romney and Obamacare
    Charlotte Cushman

    Blog: Romney and Obamacare
     
  8. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    We don't have the money. The democrats cooked the numbers to make it look better, but the fact is that we don't have the money. If the ACA stands now, we will be runnng up debt and asking future generations to pay for it. This will be the first time in our nation's history that one generation has left debts of this magnitude for their children and grandchildren to pay. There's no greater immorality to me than that.
     
  9. Freemason9
    Offline

    Freemason9 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    2,477
    Thanks Received:
    279
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +458
    Don't give me that crap. We spend nearly a trillion per year in the name of "defense," and I don't see any right wing extremists tripping over themselves to save money THERE.

    Until some right wing troll suggests at least a 25% cut in defense spending, this is just tripe. There is no crebility to your argument.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2012
  10. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194

    Not much cred in your argument either. First off, the defense budget isn't close to a trillion dollars, it's closer to 700 billion. And the DoD has already begun making spending cuts. BTW, I don't see many democrats who are willing to have defense spending cuts when it affects their districts or states. So spare me the hypocritical bullshit, not many dems are actually willing to cut defense and risk explaining their lack of support for the troops.

    25%? Have you lost your fucking mind? Do you have any idea how many jobs would be lost if a cut that big actually happened, to say nothing of our inability to honor our treaty commitments and meet national security needs? It is your nonsense that is tripe.
     

Share This Page