National Proletariat Radio

I knew years ago they were socialists but had no idea they were bigots on such an unprecedented scale like they admitted.

Remind me to shove that back in someone's face when they tell me its all about the children and Elmo.

I'm beginning to think that Rev Jeremiah Wright was correct in proclaiming "NPR's chickens are coming home to roost"...

...well, in all honesty he did not say that...but if the quote is close to fit, you must submit

Gmac:

FYI, Elmo is PBS, not NPR.

And Ron Schiller is gone.

"Well frankly, it is clear that we would be better off in the long-run without federal funding. The challenge right now is that if we lost it all together we would have a lot of stations go dark."

Sounds kinda racist?

How about paying back all the previous taxpayer funding? Same goes for the UN and other teat sucking America hating organizations around the World.

Rance,

NPR and PBS are both funded through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. In order to cut off NPR you would have to cut off the CPB. The money flows in to these organizations like water but they beg poor constantly.

It's high time they all grew up and learned to live in the real world. If they want to be a bunch of bigots and anti-Semites and think that Joos! are running the world then they are free to do so. They will just have to learn to do it on someone else's dime. So perhaps they should be courting the mulsim/al Jazeera types. They certainly hold the same world view.

"FYI, Elmo is PBS, not NPR."

Same difference. Publicly funded when they are well capable of supporting themselves through fund raising telethons/musician apearances and so fourth. Which, I may add. I enjoy very much.

"FYI, Elmo is PBS, not NPR.
And Ron Schiller is gone."

3. Posted by Rance

I realized that about 5 seconds after I hit submit.

No big deal, the idea is that when some schmuck parrots the line that they "Have to have the government money to survive" I'm going to point out that it's a direct contradiction of their former bigoted executives.

So let the National Public subsidize NPR.

Should be interesting to observe.

FYI, Elmo is PBS, not NPR.

Well PBS (Elmo) feeds from the same trough. Funding for both comes from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The is the entity that receives the taxpayer dollars. Elmo, the Cookie Monster and Big Bird make more than enough to fund the operation with contribution from power donors, like George Soros

NPR gets 1% -- that's one percent! -- of its funding directly from the CPB, and 100% of that is through grants that it applies for. In other words, 0% -- zero! -- of CPB money is preallocated to NPR. For years, NPR has described itself as an independent, self-supporting media organization. This "revelation" is a kerfuffle.

On the other hand, CPB provides an average of 10% of the funding for over 1300 independent stations (e.g., small businesses) across the country.

Defunding CPB would not harm NPR. All it would do is withdraw funding from those 1300 small businesses. This is the very definition of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And of letting your spite for NPR get the better of you. It is also dishonest to call for "defunding NPR" when you're really talking about "defunding the CPB".

An example of lamestream media bias? The headline on MSNBC's web site says, "NPR chief ousted after executive's racism remarks". Making it as if the NPR chief was fired over making racist remarks.

Re: "Defunding CPB would not harm NPR. All it would do is withdraw funding from those 1300 small businesses."

If these small businesses cannot make it without [public] subsidies, then maybe they shouldn't be in business in the first place.

Re: "NPR gets 1% -- that's one percent! -- of its funding directly from the CPB.."

Did you get that figure from Norah ODonnell?

According to the NPR website, they receive 10.1% from CPB.

http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/publicradiofinances.html

"If these small businesses cannot make it without [public] subsidies, then maybe they shouldn't be in business in the first place."

Shhhhh! They are liberal creations of good intentions and too big to fail. And thus must be supported by us for our own good. Just like ObumbleCare.

If these small businesses cannot make it without [public] subsidies, then maybe they shouldn't be in business in the first place.

If that's your argument, you're welcome to make it. That's not the "defund NPR" argument, though.

To be consistent, you'll have to also argue against tax breaks for small businesses. Though that would contradict the GOP's "Pledge to America".

And thus must be supported by us for our own good.

That's the Republican position. It's surprising you don't support it.

According to the NPR website, they receive 10.1% from CPB.

You're citing the chart that shows public radio stations receive 10% of their funding from CPB. That's the same number I cited in my post #10. That's not NPR funding.

NPR funding is broken down in the chart under that one. On that one, CPB funding doesn't even register. It likely falls under the "grants and contributions" category, and as I noted above grants from CPB account for about 1% of NPR funding.

"That's the Republican position. It's surprising you don't support it."

I'm not a Republican.

Maybe now it makes sense?

Tina S., the MSNBC teaser didn't fool me. It did not say he was let go for being a racist. ww

Maybe now it makes sense?

I'll reserve judgment for when I see you espouse a consistent position. Or at least one that's not an insult or ad hominem.

"'ll reserve judgment for when I see you espouse a consistent position. Or at least one that's not an insult or ad hominem."

Refer to comment #6, not that I have to justify myself to You or anyone.

According to the NPR website, they receive 10.1% from CPB.

1%? 10%? Who cares about a zero among all those numbers! It's so easy to just... misplace one in among all the others...

NPR and PBS should be funded only when there is a surplus in the federal budget. Otherwise, we are borrowing money to prop up there media outlets, which our children and grandchildren will get to pay back to the Chinese with interest. The same goes for quite a few of the other federally financed programs - like Harry Reid's Cowboy Poets. When there is a wide spectrum of broadcast, cable and satellite TV and radio stations, there is no justification for spending taxpayer money on Big Bird and his friends.

Is there a coherent argument for subsidizing oil companies that have been posting record profits, while defunding small businesses, the very existence of which is dependent on government funds (to a very minimal extent, in the case of NPR)?

To be consistent, you'll have to also argue against tax breaks for small businesses. Though that would contradict the GOP's "Pledge to America".

John, It's my understanding that tax cuts to small businesses allows them to keep more of the money they earn, not take more money from taxpayers. NPR is exactly the opposite, they take money from the public coffers and never return.

I'm at a loss as to the how NPR benefits the poor and middle class in this country by being funded by taxes. Surely we could cut their funding without hurting the poor and oppressed?

#24

I don't know? Give it a try and will vote up or down.

For those having trouble connecting the dots:

Note that the local stations use money to pay for NPR programs. Some of that money comes from CPB, some from local donations. If the small stations can't afford NPR programs, then they stop paying for them and NPR loses business. Thus defunding CPB DOES affect NPR.

NPR exec: "we would be better off in the long-run without federal funding"

Finally, a liberal says something worth agreeing with.

Note that the local stations use money to pay for NPR programs. Some of that money comes from CPB, some from local donations. If the small stations can't afford NPR programs, then they stop paying for them and NPR loses business.

So let's penalize independent businesses just because they make free market choices to be customers of NPR. Let's use government action to try to drive their programming decisions.

The average station gets 10% of their funding from CPB. If that funding is cut, what do you think those stations will do? Drop the programming that brings them listeners and national advertising revenue? Perhaps instead cut back on local programming? Once again, baby, bathwater.

I'm at a loss as to the how NPR benefits the poor and middle class in this country by being funded by taxes.

Since NPR is not funded by taxes, I don't have a response for you.

John,

I'm going to ask this honest question of you. I don't really expect a straight answer but here it goes anyway.

According to NPR's own website
http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/publicradiofinances.html
they receive 5.8% from Federal, State and Local Governments, they also receive 10.1% from the CBP which is funded by taxes. I'm not going to even include some of the public Universities that they receive funds from. So my question to you is if some of the sources for NPR's funding are from Government sources, then how can you say, "Since NPR is not funded by taxes, I don't have a response for you."? Seriously, am I missing something here? Please explain it to me.

Granted we're not going to balance the federal Budget by cutting their funding but as my father used to say, "you take care of the pennies and the dollars will take care of themselves"

Seriously, am I missing something here? Please explain it to me.

Sure. As I noted above (#17) to someone else who made the same error, you're citing the finances for public radio stations. The finances for NPR are in the chart under that one. The charts are clearly labeled.

Sorry to disappoint you with a straight answer.

John,
Thank you for your straight answer. I was looking at the information for Member Station Finances. My apologies.

Still, in the article it states that,

Stations receive support from several sources - listener contributions, corporate sponsorship, in-kind and direct support from universities (for those licensed to a college or university), foundation grants and major gifts, grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and in some cases state and local governments.

"While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce."

so, I believe, if I'm not entirely wrong, they DO receive money from Federal, State, and Local taxes. But, if we were to cut funding for the CPB, then since NPR doesn't receive money from taxes, as you say, then they have no fear of losing any income, correct?

What I am driving at here, is that the Federal Government needs to start cutting some things, and public radio is a good candidate for the chopping block. My reasoning is, I don't see a public benefit that would be entirely lost if we cut the funding, because revenue for them could simply come from other sources. I just don't see what the big cry is about if we cut their funding. We simply have to start trimming fat.

I've addressed all of your points in earlier comments. If you want to make the argument to defund CPB and thus cut funding for 1300 independent, non-profit, small businesses, you're welcome to do so. But that's not the "defund NPR" argument.

You're also welcome to argue for bills of attainder that prohibit NPR from participating in the open-to-everyone grant programs sponsored by government agencies. That won't get you far.

And finally, your argument that:

because revenue for them could simply come from other sources. I just don't see what the big cry is about if we cut their funding. We simply have to start trimming fat.

works equally well for any government subsidy, including those for oil companies. Since any organization that gets a subsidy can "simply" get the money from other sources, right?

works equally well for any government subsidy, including those for oil companies. Since any organization that gets a subsidy can "simply" get the money from other sources, right?You know what? You are absolutely right, lets have the debate on the floor of the house and senate about removing funding that affects 1300 businesses, as well as lets open debate on a bill that removes the subsidies for oil companies, I'm all for it! Of course you'll drive more oil companies to conduct their businesses in other countries and drive even more jobs away, but sure, I'm with you on cutting the fat where it needs to be cut.

You see, I can see where the general public benefits from Oil companies, NPR? Not so much.