Time for the idea of public broadcasting to end?

[Denny Crane]

Still waiting for an answer from someone.

What news source is more "fair and balanced" than NPR?

(Christian Science Monitor, BBC and The Economist are all pretty good too)

C-SPAN

 

[MARIS61]

C-SPAN

Provides right-wing "flavored" news and commentary on the quite narrow topic of politics, and nothing else.

It is not a major source for news, nor is it fair and balanced.

wiki:

Despite its stated commitment to providing politically balanced programming, C-SPAN and its shows such as Washington Journal, Booknotes, Q & A, and Afterwords have been accused of having a conservative bias.[17] C-SPAN's CEO Brian Lamb was a volunteer for Richard Nixon in the 1968 presidential election, and later worked as press secretary to Senator Peter H. Dominick (R-CO).[18] The liberal media criticism organization Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) released a study of C-SPAN's morning call-in show Washington Journal, showing that Republicans were favored as guests over Democrats by a two-to-one margin during a six-month period in 2005, and that people of color are underrepresented.[19] FAIR and critics including guests[20] have also charged that the shows Booknotes and Afterwords highlight more conservative authors than liberals,[21] and that guests are paired unequally. When Washington Post ombudsman Geneva Overholser appeared as a guest, she asked, "Do you typically have a conservative and then somebody who is just a journalist? Is that the typical match-up?”[22] In 2005, the left-leaning media watchdog group Media Matters for America objected that C-SPAN2 booked L. Brent Bozell, head of the right-leaning Media Research Center, to interview former CBS producer Mary Mapes on After Words about the Killian documents controversy during the United States presidential election, 2004.[23]

In 2004, C-SPAN intended to broadcast a speech by Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt adjacent to a speech by Holocaust denier David Irving, who had unsuccessfully sued Lipstadt for libel in the United Kingdom four years earlier. Critics including the Anti-Defamation League decried C-SPAN's use of the word "balance" to describe its plan to cover both.[24] C-SPAN claimed the adjacent broadcasts would pair arguments of both plaintiff and defendant. However, once Lipstadt closed media access to her speech, C-SPAN canceled the broadcasts of both.[25]

 

[MrJayremmie]

C-Span has a right wing bias? lol....

Could have fooled me.

 

[bluefrog]

C-SPAN

That is a good answer, actually. I don't have cable but I like the coverage I do see from time to time.

NPR has the advantage of being more widely available though.

 

[Denny Crane]

That is a good answer, actually. I don't have cable but I like the coverage I do see from time to time.

NPR has the advantage of being more widely available though.

C-SPAN is available on cable, satellite, etc.

They show events from start to finish, often before the events start and after the events finish, so you can see the crowd and see the speaker or speakers interact with the crowd afterwards. They show congress gavel to gavel above any other programming, though they don't get their cameras into the smoke filled rooms behind the scenes.

People of both stripes complain about Washington Journal being biased one way or the other. Right wingers constantly complain that the show features articles from the NY Times and Washington Post far more prominently than, say, Washington Times.

The claims of NPR's bias are widespread. I again ask what interest the govt. has in operating a news outlet, because it is a clear conflict of interest with the 1st amendment freedom of the press.

 

[bluefrog]

I again ask what interest the govt. has in operating a news outlet, because it is a clear conflict of interest with the 1st amendment freedom of the press.

I don't see the conflict of interest. There are numerous news outlets sponsored by the government: VOA, Stars and Stripes, For the Consumer, etc... Why isn't anyone calling their bias into question?

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't see the conflict of interest. There are numerous news outlets sponsored by the government: VOA, Stars and Stripes, For the Consumer, etc... Why isn't anyone calling their bias into question?

Which of those aren't propaganda outlets?

(The military has its own rules)

 

[julius]

Not sure the US Government really is "operating" PBS, considering the small amount of $$ that PBS receives from the Government, in relation to their overall budget.

 

[Denny Crane]

Not sure the US Government really is "operating" PBS, considering the small amount of $$ that PBS receives from the Government, in relation to their overall budget.

The threat of de-funding them is enough to make them either appease those who want to cut off the funding, or aggressively investigate them.

And since the govt. pays such a small amount of their operating $$, it sure seems like they don't need the money.

 

[agoo]

This is still a distraction from the substantive issues associated with the budget.

How much money does this save, as opposed to the time spent on the issue and taken away from real issues?

If I have $5,000 remaining on my car loan and I send a dollar to TD Bank, have I accomplished anything that I should be putting on my resume?

 

[julius]

The threat of de-funding them is enough to make them either appease those who want to cut off the funding, or aggressively investigate them.

And since the govt. pays such a small amount of their operating $$, it sure seems like they don't need the money.

No it's not, because you know and I know it won't pass the senate and even if it does, it won't pass the President.

it's bad enough the R's are trying to blame teachers for making too much money, but this one is just ridiculous. How about we cut the budget on the things that actually are the majority of the reason we're out of wack with the budget?

Or, god forbid, we tax the precious top 1% of the country a little more? Why are we so protective over 1% of the population, but want to blame teachers?

 

[julius]

This is still a distraction from the substantive issues associated with the budget.

How much money does this save, as opposed to the time spent on the issue and taken away from real issues?

If I have $5,000 remaining on my car loan and I send a dollar to TD Bank, have I accomplished anything that I should be putting on my resume?

If you wanted to run for political office, yes.

 

[MARIS61]

I don't see the conflict of interest. There are numerous news outlets sponsored by the government: VOA, Stars and Stripes, For the Consumer, etc... Why isn't anyone calling their bias into question?

Why isn't anyone demanding they cease to be funded?

Denny? Where's your outrage?

 

[MARIS61]

The threat of de-funding them is enough to make them either appease those who want to cut off the funding, or aggressively investigate them.

And since the govt. pays such a small amount of their operating $$, it sure seems like they don't need the money.

Your second sentence is in direct conflict with your first sentence.

Please try to pick one viewpoint and stay with it.

 

[Denny Crane]

No it's not, because you know and I know it won't pass the senate and even if it does, it won't pass the President.

it's bad enough the R's are trying to blame teachers for making too much money, but this one is just ridiculous. How about we cut the budget on the things that actually are the majority of the reason we're out of wack with the budget?

Or, god forbid, we tax the precious top 1% of the country a little more? Why are we so protective over 1% of the population, but want to blame teachers?

They have to cut medicare and/or social security to make a real dent in the budget. Cutting 80% from the military budget would cut the deficit by 1/3.

They really need to stop spending on things just because they're "cool" (to progressives), and just for the sake of it.

 

[Denny Crane]

Your second sentence is in direct conflict with your first sentence.

Please try to pick one viewpoint and stay with it.

No it's not.

And I am outraged at govt. spending on anything to do with the press/media.

 

[barfo]

They have to cut medicare and/or social security to make a real dent in the budget. Cutting 80% from the military budget would cut the deficit by 1/3.

They really need to stop spending on things just because they're "cool" (to progressives), and just for the sake of it.

So we have social security and medicare just because they're "cool"?

barfo

 

[julius]

They have to cut medicare and/or social security to make a real dent in the budget. Cutting 80% from the military budget would cut the deficit by 1/3.

They really need to stop spending on things just because they're "cool" (to progressives), and just for the sake of it.

They should cut going to war with 2 countries. That'd probably make a huge difference in the budget.

 

[barfo]

They have to cut medicare and/or social security to make a real dent in the budget. Cutting 80% from the military budget would cut the deficit by 1/3.

As the recession ends, tax revenues will go back up and spending will go down, and the deficits will be reduced. And then cutting 80% from the military budget will cut the deficit by a lot more than 1/3.

I know you want to ignore this fact, but today's deficits are TEMPORARY. Making long term cuts based on short-term problems isn't smart policy. Unless, of course, you have an axe to grind and see an opportunity to grind it.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

They should cut going to war with 2 countries. That'd probably make a huge difference in the budget.

You figure it out. $3.5B in spending, $2.1B in revenues.

 

[MARIS61]

They have to cut medicare and/or social security to make a real dent in the budget. Cutting 80% from the military budget would cut the deficit by 1/3.

The military "budget" most of which goes untracked and uncounted due to being "classified", is only a tiny piece of the military pie.

"The military" includes entire armies devoted to protecting other countries. It includes at dozens of bases we could do without. It includes over 15,000 nuclear warheads we could never possibly use. It includes enough unneeded vehicles to provide transportation for several entire countries. Every base includes subsidized houding, food, healthcare, all for a bunch of unneeded grunts drawing paychecks for life to play army.

Sell the bases to industry. Sell the vehicles to anyone who wants them. Sell the nuclear warheads to Halliburton and let them fight their own wars for a change. Make the food available to people who actually need it.

Cutiing 80% of "the military" would pay off the debt and leave us with our largest ever budget surplus.

 

[MARIS61]

No it's not.

Yes, it is.

If the first sentence is accurate, then the second is obviously false.

And vice versa.

 

[MARIS61]

You figure it out. $3.5B in spending, $2.1B in revenues.

I believe we're talking trillions here, not billions, by why quibble.

 

[MARIS61]

Without the Bush/Halliburton wars, we'd have no deficit at all. We'd have a gigantic surplus, eclipsing the one Clinton left us.

There would not have been an economic collapse at all and no bailout would have been needed.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.


Financial cost of the Iraq War

Direct costs

As of February 2010, around $704 billion has been spent based on estimates of current expenditure rates,[1] which range from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimate of $2 billion per week to $12 billion a month, an estimate by economist Joseph Stiglitz.[2]

Those figures are significantly more than typical estimates published just prior to the start of the Iraq War, many of which were based on a shorter term of involvement. For example, in a March 16, 2003 Meet the Press interview of Vice President Dick Cheney, held less than a week before the Iraq War began, host Tim Russert reported that "every analysis said this war itself would cost about $80 billion, recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of Iraq, about $10 billion per year. We should expect as American citizens that this would cost at least $100 billion for a two-year involvement.".[3]

[edit] AppropriationsSee also: Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund
FY2003 Supplemental: Operation Iraqi Freedom: Passed April 2003; Total $78.5 billion, $54.4 billion Iraq War
FY2004 Supplemental: Iraq and Afghanistan Ongoing Operations/Reconstruction: Passed November 2003; Total $87.5 billion, $70.6 billion Iraq War
FY2004 DoD Budget Amendment: $25 Emergency Reserve Fund (Iraq Freedom Fund): Passed July 2004, Total $25 billion, $21.5 billion (estimated) Iraq War
FY2005 Emergency Supplemental: Operations in the War on Terror; Activities in Afghanistan; Tsunami Relief: Passed April 2005, Total $82 billion, $58 billion (estimated) Iraq War
FY2006 Department of Defense appropriations: Total $50 billion, $40 billion (estimated) Iraq War.
FY2006 Emergency Supplemental: Operations Global War on Terror; Activities in Iraq & Afghanistan: Passed February 2006, Total $72.4 billion, $60 billion (estimated) Iraq War
FY2007 Department of Defense appropriations: $70 billion(estimated) for Iraq War-related costs[4][5]
FY2007 Emergency Supplemental (proposed) $100 billion
FY2008 Bush administration has proposed around $190 billion for the Iraq War and Afghanistan[6]
FY2009 Obama administration has proposed around $130 billion in additional funding for the Iraq War and Afghanistan.[7]
FY2011 Obama administration proposes around $159.3 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.[8]
[edit] Indirect and delayed costsAccording to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per U.S. citizen.[9][10]

Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, has stated the total costs of the Iraq War on the US economy will be three trillion dollars in a moderate scenario, and possibly more in the most recent published study, published in March 2008.[11] Stiglitz has stated: "The figure we arrive at is more than $3 trillion. Our calculations are based on conservative assumptions...Needless to say, this number represents the cost only to the United States. It does not reflect the enormous cost to the rest of the world, or to Iraq."[11]
The extended combat and equipment loss have placed a severe financial strain on the U.S Army, causing the elimination of non-essential expenses such as travel and civilian hiring.[12][13]

Long-term health care costsA recent study indicated that the long term health care costs for wounded Iraq war veterans could range from $350 billion to $700 billion.[14]

[edit] Military equipment lostThe U.S. has lost a number of pieces of military equipment during the war. The following statistics are from the Center for American Progress:;[15] they are approximations that include vehicles lost in non-combat-related accidents as of 2009.

[edit] Land equipment80 M1 Abrams tanks
55 Bradley fighting vehicles
20 Stryker wheeled combat vehicles
20 M113 armored personnel carriers
250 Humvees
500+ Mine clearing vehicles, heavy/medium trucks, and trailers
10 Amphibious Assault Vehicles[16][17]
[edit] Air equipmentMain article: List of aviation accidents and incidents during the Iraq War
109 Helicopters
18 Fixed-Wing Aircraft


In June 2006, the Army said that the cost of replacing its depleted equipment tripled from that of 2005.[18] As of December 2006, according to government data reported by the Washington Post, the military stated that nearly 40% of the army’s total equipment has been to Iraq, with an estimated yearly refurbishment cost of $US 17 billion. The military states that the yearly refurbishment cost has increased by a factor of ten compared to that of the pre-war state. As of December 2006 approximately 500 M1 tanks, 700 Bradley Fighting Vehicles and 1000 Humvees are awaiting repair in US military depots.[19]

 

[julius]

I believe we're talking trillions here, not billions, by why quibble.

Ooh, quibble, that's a good scrabble word I bet.

 

[Denny Crane]

Without the Bush/Halliburton wars, we'd have no deficit at all. We'd have a gigantic surplus, eclipsing the one Clinton left us.

There would not have been an economic collapse at all and no bailout would have been needed.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.


Financial cost of the Iraq War

Direct costs

As of February 2010, around $704 billion has been spent based on estimates of current expenditure rates,[1] which range from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimate of $2 billion per week to $12 billion a month, an estimate by economist Joseph Stiglitz.[2]

We had surpluses over $200B (which were an illusion, but whatever). $704B / 8 years = $88B / year. $200B - $88B = still a surplus.

Now google the cost of the medicare prescription drug benefit.

 

[Master Shake]

I'd like to see a few more pie charts and graphs before I make any major finical decisions.