-
Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.
OT - Politics as a Sport - Last night's debate
- Thread starter SFP
- Start date
Have you ever heard of the US Post Office and the role the Founding Fathers planned to develop the newspaper industry and freedom of speech?
"Realizing that an informed citizenry was essential for a democracy to be successful, America’s first politicians authorized highly subsidized postage rates for a nascent newspaper industry that created the greatest proliferation of newspapers the world had ever seen and a national market for information long before there was a national market for goods. As early as 1785, Congress authorized government-sponsored stagecoach service primarily for mail and newspaper transportation, and until the advent of railroads, subsidized stagecoaches were the principal means of intercity public transportation. The constitutional power to establish post roads was seized upon to expand the national role in road development, leading by 1840 to a 150,000-mile network of post roads binding the nation into an integrated whole."
http://www.uspsoig.gov/foia_files/RARC-WP-12-012.pdf
tornado
New member
Yikes - Ben - you have just unwittingly posted something that STRONGLY argues my point exactly - that even quotes Jefferson as saying...
"No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying . . . that
man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore
be, to leave open to him all the avenues to truth. The most effectual
hitherto found, is the freedom of the press."
The whole thing argues for the FREEDOM of the PRESS and the GOVERNMENT staying hands off.
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!
...it appears to be the Post Office spokespeople simply reinventing reality in order to justify their own existence - which has been threatened a lot
recently with the rise of private carriers like FedEx & UPS, and by horrific mismanagement and near bankruptcy..
Remember - the Post Office did not exist when the Declaration or the Constitution were drawn up..
it came a few years later - and the government did indeed think it was important for the masses of people to be informed and educated so
they drew up the lower postal rates for newspapers, books, and ALL PRINTED MATERIAL - not just newspapers alone -
you can still get the "BOOK RATE" even today and you can even get it for tapes and phonograph records!
I am a record collector and have used what they call the "Library rate" or "Book rate" or "Publication rate" many times.
AND THE REASON WAS SO THAT IT WOULD NOT BE SEEN AS THE GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING THE MEDIA -
IT WAS TO "FREE UP" THE MEDIA AND PUBLISHERS SO THEY WOULD NOT FEEL BURDENED (OR CONTROLLED) BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Remember - the first postage stamps didn't come along until 60 years later!!!
The postage was often controlled back in the late 1700's and early 1800's by unscrupulous local agents and postmasters and the newspapers
were essentially being blackmailed with unreasonable postage charges - by both elected and UN-elected people so the feds saw that coming and legislated to prevent it.
"No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying . . . that
man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore
be, to leave open to him all the avenues to truth. The most effectual
hitherto found, is the freedom of the press."
The whole thing argues for the FREEDOM of the PRESS and the GOVERNMENT staying hands off.
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!
...it appears to be the Post Office spokespeople simply reinventing reality in order to justify their own existence - which has been threatened a lot
recently with the rise of private carriers like FedEx & UPS, and by horrific mismanagement and near bankruptcy..
Remember - the Post Office did not exist when the Declaration or the Constitution were drawn up..
it came a few years later - and the government did indeed think it was important for the masses of people to be informed and educated so
they drew up the lower postal rates for newspapers, books, and ALL PRINTED MATERIAL - not just newspapers alone -
you can still get the "BOOK RATE" even today and you can even get it for tapes and phonograph records!
I am a record collector and have used what they call the "Library rate" or "Book rate" or "Publication rate" many times.
AND THE REASON WAS SO THAT IT WOULD NOT BE SEEN AS THE GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING THE MEDIA -
IT WAS TO "FREE UP" THE MEDIA AND PUBLISHERS SO THEY WOULD NOT FEEL BURDENED (OR CONTROLLED) BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Remember - the first postage stamps didn't come along until 60 years later!!!
The postage was often controlled back in the late 1700's and early 1800's by unscrupulous local agents and postmasters and the newspapers
were essentially being blackmailed with unreasonable postage charges - by both elected and UN-elected people so the feds saw that coming and legislated to prevent it.
I wonder what they would think of how few really control the news. In 1800 there were ~200 independently ran newspapers. Today there are 5 major corporations controlling our news. Something is out of whack!
I also wonder how they would feel about US Federal Reserve and the ability for corporations to fund elections. Do you know there are foreign concerns funding this election? The backdoor is through the Citizen United v. FEC Supreme Court decision.
That decision had nothing to do with foreign money funding elections. It simply reversed the McCain-Feingold restrictions that were violations of constitutionally protected free speech.
Here is where the foreign money is sneaking into this election-
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinio...ign_open_door_to_china_mEQG5tC5tRZdbDbiTHGBcL
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...-foreign-fraudulent-donors-to-obama-campaign/
Here is where the foreign money is sneaking into this election-
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinio...ign_open_door_to_china_mEQG5tC5tRZdbDbiTHGBcL
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...-foreign-fraudulent-donors-to-obama-campaign/
Please, let's not bring the founding fathers into this discussion. It is completely pointless to debate what they would think.
Honestly, if anybody (founding father or regular joe) from the Revolutionary time period saw how any of our branches were run today, they would be shocked to say the least.
Congress was never meant to be or designed to be a lifetime job for people. It was originally meant for people to actually represent the their constituents. Not collect kickbacks and tack on ignorant pork projects to every normal bill that goes through Congress.
You can elect Romney or re-elect Obama and nothing major will change. If you live your life waiting for a President to come and magically fix things you are going to grow old and gray waiting for that day.
If you want to fix America, try instituting term limits in Congress. Truly make all kick-backs illegal. Strictly oversee lobbying.
It might also help if actual people ran for President. It doesn't help having party-driven, political machine-made candidates presented every 4 years. Let's get real people, who have actually worked jobs (not held political offices for 40 years). Maybe then, politics could take a back seat and real work and change could happen.
Now I realize that is about as likely as the Cubs winning the WS or reality TV being taken off the air, but it would be nice to see!
Honestly, if anybody (founding father or regular joe) from the Revolutionary time period saw how any of our branches were run today, they would be shocked to say the least.
Congress was never meant to be or designed to be a lifetime job for people. It was originally meant for people to actually represent the their constituents. Not collect kickbacks and tack on ignorant pork projects to every normal bill that goes through Congress.
You can elect Romney or re-elect Obama and nothing major will change. If you live your life waiting for a President to come and magically fix things you are going to grow old and gray waiting for that day.
If you want to fix America, try instituting term limits in Congress. Truly make all kick-backs illegal. Strictly oversee lobbying.
It might also help if actual people ran for President. It doesn't help having party-driven, political machine-made candidates presented every 4 years. Let's get real people, who have actually worked jobs (not held political offices for 40 years). Maybe then, politics could take a back seat and real work and change could happen.
Now I realize that is about as likely as the Cubs winning the WS or reality TV being taken off the air, but it would be nice to see!
T - Put your head in a hole and just ignore what Citizen United decision has done to our election process. It so much easier for a foreign concern to put money into our elections then ever before. All they need is to be incorporated in the USA and use the money they make there for unlimited contributions to PACs and other organizations.
"McCain-Feingold restrictions that were violations of constitutionally protected free speech.", really like how? Citizen United v FEC gave Corporations the same rights as citizens. I'm still confused by that. Last I knew a Corporation could not serve in the army and perform other civic duties that American citizens have to perform. Corporations are citizens? What it has allowed is the ability for large international conglomerates to influence our political agenda like never before.
Senator X - Thanks Corporation W for supporting my friends PAC.
Corporation W - No problem we'll be there the next go around as long as everything goes the way we want it.
We need campaign reform laws like never before so we can perhaps create a foundation that will get our children's political structure close to what JD pointed out. Wake up America or we will be living in a country that closely resembles Russia.
tornado
New member
SFP - you're addressing me on something that Da Coach had said - so I don't know how to respond..
and I think it is very important to discuss and consider what the Founding Fathers would have thought or did think...
In fact in MANY Supreme Court decisions - that's PRECISELY what he justices do - they do it ALL THE TIME...
..they look at all the other writings of those very people who wrote the Constitution and formulated what's in it.
They cite the "wall of separation" between church and state - in numerous court cases regarding what's CONSTITUTIONAL, but that phrase appears NOWHERE in the Constitution -
...but it does appear in one obscure letter written by Jefferson more than a decade after the constitution was signed!
That's only the best example - but MANY other court cases and Supreme Court determinations of what is Constitutional have come from Founding Fathers' writings as much as 30 years later!
BTW -as an interesting argument - this "wall of separation" was cited only twice or so in all of the first hundred years of legal proceedings in the ENTIRE USA..
but in the last 50 years or so it's been cited thousands of times -- and why?? Because it has now been bent so far out of shape and it's being used in cases that CLEARLY even the Founding Fathers wouldn't have wanted it used - like tearing down religious displays in public. NOBODY in Jefferson's day would have ever favored such a thing but now we have people arguing the "wall of separation" demands it! They are essentially taking Jefferson's own words and twisting them to use it against what he'd have clearly wanted.
and I think it is very important to discuss and consider what the Founding Fathers would have thought or did think...
In fact in MANY Supreme Court decisions - that's PRECISELY what he justices do - they do it ALL THE TIME...
..they look at all the other writings of those very people who wrote the Constitution and formulated what's in it.
They cite the "wall of separation" between church and state - in numerous court cases regarding what's CONSTITUTIONAL, but that phrase appears NOWHERE in the Constitution -
...but it does appear in one obscure letter written by Jefferson more than a decade after the constitution was signed!
That's only the best example - but MANY other court cases and Supreme Court determinations of what is Constitutional have come from Founding Fathers' writings as much as 30 years later!
BTW -as an interesting argument - this "wall of separation" was cited only twice or so in all of the first hundred years of legal proceedings in the ENTIRE USA..
but in the last 50 years or so it's been cited thousands of times -- and why?? Because it has now been bent so far out of shape and it's being used in cases that CLEARLY even the Founding Fathers wouldn't have wanted it used - like tearing down religious displays in public. NOBODY in Jefferson's day would have ever favored such a thing but now we have people arguing the "wall of separation" demands it! They are essentially taking Jefferson's own words and twisting them to use it against what he'd have clearly wanted.
Sorry T! I 100% agree that there needs to be a separation between church and state. No argument there whatsoever. I find it ironic though the same people who want to stop funding PBS are the first that want to fund religious groups for schools and other activities. It also goes the other way around. You can't have it both ways IMO. I do not mind the government funding non-profit organizations which provide services that benefit the community at large, regardless of affiliation. It's when the federal government starts creating strict guidelines that are religious or political in nature. ie Catholic Hospitals have to give abortions to receive funding is ludicrous and others who donot want any funds to go to planned parenthood because of what they stand for. Both organizations serve their communities at large.
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.:idea: 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. :idea:;-)
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
New member
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
New member
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?
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
New member
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
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!
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.