OT - Politics as a Sport - Last night's debate

[Beninator]

I have no idea where interpretation of that story ever came from but it's bogus...and I guess I can see why - it's coming from the folks
at the post office who want you to think the post office is the savior of all that's free and good!

Come on T is that the best you can do? You post that my claim is bogus but you do not provide any links to back up your point. I mean you are the king of posting internet links.

I knew collecting stamps when I was a kid would come in handy one of these days....

Check out the Post Office Act of 1792.

From UCLA Entertainment Law Review.

http://theentertainmentlawreview.com/?page_id=0

"1. Post Office Act of 1792

Shortly after the nation’s founding, Congress saw a need to subsidize the press to encourage the dissemination of news across newly united states. With the Post Office Act of 1792, Congress, seeking to provide citizens access to the information that would aid their political decision-making,[84] set a nominal fee for the circulation of newspapers via mail.[85] All newspapers qualified for the subsidy and, regardless of weight, were to be delivered for one cent if traveling fewer than one hundred miles and for one and a half cents if traveling farther. Thus, in 1794 newspapers constituted 70 percent of mail weight but produced only 3 percent of postal revenue.[86] Four decades later, newspapers accounted for 95 percent of postal weight but still contributed only 15 percent of revenue.[87] Moreover, because Congress wanted the Postal Service to be independently funded, the Postal Service had to raise letter rates to compensate for the reduced newspaper rate. The newspaper postal rate has increased over the years but still favors the press.[88"

Also from those agenda prone people at the USPS. (sarcasm intended)

Postage Rates for Periodicals: A Narrative History

http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal-history/periodicals-postage-history.htm

"Congress, which legislated postage rates until 1970, encouraged the exchange of newspapers and magazines by allowing them to travel through the mail at extremely low rates of postage – in some cases for free. Congress subsidized postage on periodicals by over-charging for letter postage and, when necessary, digging deep into the U.S. Treasury. Congress dropped postage rates on periodicals for nearly a hundred years, even as soaring costs of handling and shipping led postal officials to recommend at least modest rate increases. Although Congress periodically refined the definition of a periodical to try to prevent mailers from abusing the low postage rates, it was not until 1917 that Congress began to slowly raise rates. Despite subsequent rate increases, delivery costs far surpassed revenues through the 1970s."

[tornado]

but that is my point the whole purpose of such action by govt is to free up newspapers from the burden of the government ..
to state that the rates will be low and fair and not subject to political manipulation

it is to preserve a FREE and independent press, guarantee they are all treated fairly and equally, and not to give money to just ONE arbitrarily chosen outlet such as PBS

In other words - your example of the government "supporting PBS" is an example of how they CHOSE in 1792 to be sure selective government subsidies and benefits do NOT go to any single news outlet and never do "support" or control them.

[BUFanatic]

...I've been reading the ultra liberal paper here in the bay area and reading the comments and wondering what debate did they watched...

So, unrelated note, but I think I just figured out what SFP stands for finally!

On a related note, I'm excited for the VP debate tonight and I hope that I get to watch it, whether tonight or after the fact. I know FoxNews was running the Presidential debate late at night for a couple days.

[Da Coach]

Besides a couple good playoff baseball games tonight, there is an NFL football game on TV tonight.
So the vice-presidential debate probably won't get even half the 70 million viewers the Romney-Obama debate got last week. But I also plan on trying to catch most of it.

[Beninator]

but that is my point the whole purpose of such action by govt is to free up newspapers from the burden of the government ..
to state that the rates will be low and fair and not subject to political manipulation

it is to preserve a FREE and independent press, guarantee they are all treated fairly and equally, and not to give money to just ONE arbitrarily chosen outlet such as PBS

In other words - your example of the government "supporting PBS" is an example of how they CHOSE in 1792 to be sure selective government subsidies and benefits do NOT go to any single news outlet and never do "support" or control them.

Your original post stated that the Founding Fathers would not subsidize the media in their time. My response is that the Founding Fathers did subsidize the media and did things that made sense in their era. I very much agree with a previous post that it is pointless to debate what they would think of current events.

[tornado]

disagree -- obviously the context was giving certain outlets a break like giving money to PBS but not FoxNews...

in the mail thing the rule was applied equally to ALL newspapers then later to anyone even private citizens who wished to mail publications and printed material.
This isn't even close to what we were talking about - MONEY - actual appropriations from the federal government to a private broadcaster selectively , then, NOT doing it for anyone else.

If a hardware store puts all Stihl saws on sale to everyone - is he selectively giving me a subsidy or handing me cash because I go buy one?

[SFP]

disagree -- obviously the context was giving certain outlets a break like giving money to PBS but not FoxNews...

in the mail thing the rule was applied equally to ALL newspapers then later to anyone even private citizens who wished to mail publications and printed material.
This isn't even close to what we were talking about - MONEY - actual appropriations from the federal government to a private broadcaster selectively , then, NOT doing it for anyone else.

If a hardware store puts all Stihl saws on sale to everyone - is he selectively giving me a subsidy or handing me cash because I go buy one?

I'm betting you are against the endowment of the arts and other government funded enterprises that eventually enriches our culture or exposes our society to ideas that will make us think. I'm not for big government at all or anything close to that but we do need funding to come from a source without ulterior motives and we will not get that from private enterprise because their agenda is all about them. Yes governments do have an agenda but the citizens with the vote has the ability to curb that agenda. We do not have the same power with private corporation. In fact the budget set aside for these platforms is relatively minuscule compared to all the other government funded projects! I would not mind coming back to these government funded organizations once we finish concentrating on real government waste and pork. I've been a part of $Billion contracts in the federal government and what they pay for Big Bird and PBS is relatively minor. Also, PBS does raise funds on their own and does offer up an educational platform which is used by educators throughout the USA. Common sense is what is called for and going to the extreme either way is very dangerous. What's next public library system?

[tornado]

I am not at all convinced that government funded "art" enriches anything except the artist's bank account...

gotta wonder how the hey all the great artists of the past were ever able to do it without federal funding...

..and don't tell me Michaelangelo was funded - because he was hired after he became known as a great artist he wasn't subsidized

[SFP]

I am not at all convinced that government funded "art" enriches anything except the artist's bank account...

gotta wonder how the hey all the great artists of the past were ever able to do it without federal funding...

..and don't tell me Michaelangelo was funded - because he was hired after he became known as a great artist he wasn't subsidized

What do you know about art T? He was funded by no other then the Vatican! LOL wow!

[Da Coach]

What do you know about art T? He was funded by no other then the Vatican! LOL wow!

Michelangelo worked under commissions for a lot of different private individuals and institutions (many different churches), as did most of the well known artists of the Renaissance era. The commissions were for specific work that was assigned and done, and not at all like subsidies with no strings attached that are given out today by the government.

[tornado]

to me the biggest political hypocrisy is those who want more taxes...

Governments are NOT short on money - they have plenty - trillions of $$ more than plenty - they are just wasteful and overspend!
............ nothing prohibits anyone from voluntarily..sending more $$ anytime they want -

..then isn't it hypocrisy to say you want more taxes but you decline to willingly pay more yourself?
If you like what the government does with the hard earned $$ they take from you then please....by all means....send them more and more --
Personally I don't like all my tax dollars paying for the smut some call art, for politicians' wild parties/orgies, and on imbecilic wasteful programs...
Just like everyone else - I take as much advantage as I can of every legal way to do my taxes to keep as much as I can...every deduction, every exemption, save every receipt, etc...
..so I am not giving even one cent more to them than at all possible....and I am very happy to see that smart earners like Mitt Romney likewise take advantage of EVERY tax rule that might benefit them...even tho in doing so LEGALLY there are still those who whine about how successful he's been.

[SFP]

T we can agree on one subject that less government is preferable to more and that our tax dollars are being wasted. I believe a lot of our tax dollars are being wasted on Corporate welfare and Special Interest from both the right and the left with very little concern for the middle class and the working poor.

I have listened and watched a lot of Bill Moyers for over 30 years on CBS and PBS. And he is extremely liberal in his ideas and politics. He describes himself as progressive, has provided millions of dollars of support to liberal organizations, and is constantly bashing and vilifying conservatives.

Bill Moyer provided PBS with millions of dollars and does not take a dime from them. His funding comes from private donations that fundamentally agree with his platform. You can see who donates to his show in the beginning and end of his show.

Michelangelo worked under commissions for a lot of different private individuals and institutions (many different churches), as did most of the well known artists of the Renaissance era. The commissions were for specific work that was assigned and done, and not at all like subsidies with no strings attached that are given out today by the government.

The Vatican was and is a governmental institution with an agenda to paint themselves as divine. I'd rather have our Art Endowments (which really is not much at all) go to groups that try to expose our society to subjects outside of the mainstream. Sometimes it does go overboard but art is about culture and at one point Mozart was considered scandalous.

[tornado]

...our tax dollars are being wasted on Corporate welfare and Special Interest from both the right and the left...

hmmm.....can you say what special interests on the right get tax dollars??
Our local "Pregnancy Center" right here in Peoria performs and/or refers for ALL of the EXACT same services as Planned Parenthood does...(except abortion)
and yet Planned Parenthood received billions government handouts ($400M per year!), and our local Pregnancy Center gets precisely ZERO.

Rush Limbaugh provides precisely the same service (broadcast news and commentary) as Bill Moyers or Charlie Rose...
each has their slants and biases, but then so do we all.....
and yet Limbaugh gets no government handouts while those other guys do.

...and of all the people who have received funding and grants for "arts"...it has been estimated that close to 100% are either liberal or we don't know where they stand...



...so I am waiting to hear the lengthy list of conservative "special interest groups" who get funded by the government - because if there are any at all (and there might be a few who have fooled the feds and have cashed in) but there sure aren't many.


NOTE - nobody proposes eliminating art or artists - just let them do as they wish and not arbitrarily give them tax dollars!



then... define "Corporate welfare" - because most successful corporations do NOT get government money unless they rightfully and legally bid & win on contracts like Caterpillar does.
CAT does not get anything close to resembling "welfare"...
I know some industries do like the dairy industry and tobacco but I don't think they should either.

but...oddly - the big corporations run by or owned by people who are BIG contributors to the administration - such as SOLYNDA - well, bingo - they do get enormous loans that they end up never paying back....interesting...



Lastly - nobody I have ever heard wants corporations to fail - all many wanted with General Motors is the same as Chrysler did a few years ago --
and what American Motors did a few years before that....
...go thru re-organization and come out way more successful in the end - and NOT cost the taxpayers a trillion dollars in the process!!!!

[SFP]

Corporate Welfare pays taxes? So the billions in dollar tax breaks given to large wealthy corporations in right offs is a fair system for you, then we have very little to discuss. I believe in breaks for small businesses, especially for those family owned farms. that have been screwed the last 3 decades. Who do you think is profiting from this? Big agro is one!

On Planned Parenthood, I see your point but as a humanist it is the only place in a vast amount of markets that the under served and poor can get those services. Would you rather have us revert to the back alley operations?

On Bill Moyer last I checked I could not find any documentation that his production receives federal funds to produce his show. I also believe Charlie Rose Production gets the vast majority of his revenues from Bloomberg. If anything these shows help fund PBS. Neither one of them work for PBS or PBR. I'm sure if Rush wanted to he could find corporate donors to put his show on PBS but I doubt he would make as much.

I'm not a liberal but a centrist with a libertarian bent. I really do not believe in either Republicans or Democrats because otherwise Special Interest would be playing a lesser role to this election cycle. As a matter of fact the amount of money flowing into this election is at an all time high. How do you explain this? These are smart business men and women who know how to invest their fund wisely. The system is broke!

[SFP]

BTW..Here's some great reading for any policy wonks out there. It gives a fairly comprehensive view comparing Obama and Romney’s Technology and Innovation Policies....... I have to say I'm in Romney's camp on the majority but not all.

http://www.idgconnect.com/download/11318/comparing-obama-romney-s-technology-innovation-policies?flag=true&region=idgconnect&source=NLSaturday_US101312