Pat Dollard

TOO much. Whatever it is.

Why should any station get our funding? No “commercials”? Yeah right. They are as commercial as hell. And liars to boot. Bilking little old ladies out of their quarters and dimes on their “beg-a-thons” because they are “being cut off by the government and you have to SAVE us”…Liars. LIARS.

You wrote:  “NPR doesn’t get that much tax based funding.” 

Really?

Here’s a clue-bat for ya that took me only about 15 seconds of research to find.
Feel free to rap it smartly against your head and ears as often as necessary:

What is the total amount of taxpayer funding for public radio?

According to the CPB’s Public Broadcasting Revenue: Fiscal Year 2008,
public radio got at least 26% of its revenue from public sources,
including the Congressional appropriation to CPB, Federal Grants and
Contracts, Local Governments, State Governments and State Colleges and
Universities, an amount that totals almost $252,000,000 dollars.
(derived from Table 2) By far, most of this taxpayer-based funding for
public radio goes to NPR and its affiliates. A relatively small amount
goes to other public radio, such as the egregiously biased, lunatic
fringe  Pacifica Radio, which is so extreme in its coverage of Israel that it actually makes NPR sound reasonable.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=4&x_outlet=28&x_article=1941

Ignorance is curable.

Here’s $14.8 trillion question, buttercup:

Just where – PRECISELY – do you believe the gummint (federal, state, county AND local) GETS the money for those “grants and subsidies”?

When you have a clue about that, you might actually make some progress on your “ignorance-reduction” plan…..

Good start, however you’re missing the elephant in the room:
ALL the money to broadcast the shit on npr comes from people who actually PRODUCE something – whether products or services.

Now – follow me on this – IF the ones who VOLUNTARILY contribute money ALSO get a “deduction” on their taxes – and, since Congress has proven incapable of actually CUTTING any spending – then that means that SOMEBODY has to make up the difference in “lost revenue”.
….yeah, that’s actually how those political twerps look at it, and no, it DOESN’T actually make any logical sense, but that is how the pukes we’ve got in D.C. rationalize their spending addiction.

Long story short:  whether it’s from “tax-deductible contributions” or back-handed, shell-game “grants”, any way you slice it, the leftist propaganda mill that is npr is ENTIRELY funded (indirectly, and with maximum “hide-the-money-trail-and-lie-a-lot” chicanery) by tax-payers.
Period.

Logically, the next question to follow – or, perhaps precede in a rational world – is WHY THE HELL is the gummint stealing (under threat of tax law) money from Americans – the vast majority of whom neither listen to nor approve of the programming on it – to fund a single radio network with an obvious political agenda, while nearly all the other stations have to make it on their own, on the basis of their programming, popularity, and marketability?
…more simply put:
Why should Americans be forced to pay money for something they wouldn’t buy on their own?

I listen to “capitalist” radio – and give my business to the businesses who spend THEIR money to advertise on them.

We need to not only defund cpb and npr, but also remove any “tax-deductions” on them.
Let ‘em sell advertising like everyone else, or sell actual satellite subscriptions.

I don’t want MY money stolen to support a propaganda mill that’s working to destroy my nation.

…and I have the exact SAME disagreement with gummint-sanctioned theft by organized (socialist) unions, but that’s a rant for another time………

Just remember, like it or not, EVERYTHING is “all about the money”, and any time anybody substitutes Emotion for Logic, it always means they’ve got an agenda to hide.

There’s no substitute for Facts and Logic.

Which one?
Or all of ‘em?
Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Satanic, Global Warming…..?

One problem – the First Amendment.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof…..”

The power to tax is ALSO the power to promote or punish.
Have you already forgotten the lesson we had in the discussion above?

Essentially, the argument AGAINST tax-support or tax-cuts for npr (favoritism) is the EXACT SAME REASON for NOT removing the “tax-exempt” status of the various religious institutions.

The power to tax could be used to prohibit OR promote one religion over another.
That idea is a no-go from the get-go.

Try these on for size:

To better understand the use of taxation to punish or reward – in addition to being used to collect revenues for LEGITIMATE Constitutional uses, here’s a link to the Federalist Papers.
I recommend starting with #30 thru 36.
Most people do NOT understand what taxes are REALLY all about under our current system, nor what they SHOULD be used for.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm

Your next bit of reading should be to get a better grasp on the basics of Logic – a skill virtually untaught (deliberately) in the union-infested public school system.
After all, we mustn’t teach young kids to reason for themselves now, can we?

http://www.iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/

Before long, you’ll see the reasoning in my previous post.
It’s merely basic Logic and a familiarity with the intend and letter of the Constitution.
…which, since I swore to “support and defend” it more than 30 years back, I figured I’d better know what it was I was putting my ass on the line to protect……..LOL

Which one?
Or all of ‘em?
Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Satanic, Global Warming…..?

One problem – the First Amendment.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof…..”

The power to tax is ALSO the power to promote or punish.
Have you already forgotten the lesson we had in the discussion above?

Essentially, the argument AGAINST tax-support or tax-cuts for npr (favoritism) is the EXACT SAME REASON for NOT removing the “tax-exempt” status of the various religious institutions.

The power to tax could be used to prohibit OR promote one religion over another.
That idea is a no-go from the get-go.

The point is that there is not much from our income tax. Grants and local government subsidies are not from our income tax. I haave some ignorance, and I work daily to cure it.  Do you?