Can Someone Explain How Sponsoring NASCAR Is A Good Use Of Taxpayer Funds, If Funding Sesame Street Is Not?
from the just-curious-which-standard-to-use dept
I'm sort of amazed at the silly and childish political games being played concerning attempts to cut funding here and there, but, seriously can anyone give me a logical explanation why the same folks who are so quick to demand that we stop funding NPR and PBS are so vehemently in favor of sponsoring NASCAR? Frankly, as a fan of both NPR and PBS, but not a fan of governments overspending, I actually think the complaints against pulling the funding from both are a bit overblown. I think there are some creative things that both NPR and PBS could do to make up the difference if they lost federal funding. However, if we are going to cut public broadcasting, then it seems only reasonable to cut sponsoring NASCAR as well, doesn't it? I'm curious how folks who claim to support smaller government are defending such sponsorship of a private, for-profit operation with taxpayer funding?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: budget, federal government, funding, nascar, npr, pbs
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I guess its the Republicans and tea party trying its best to cut off the Democrats an liberal left before they can gain any traction before the next major election cycle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Add to this the holier than thou attidtude of the left and this type of rhetoric is what is spewed.
No group is greater at taking money for political favors then the left. NO GROUP. The left has one agenda....take from the working class and 'rich' (as though they are evil), keep most for themselves, give a bit to the needy and keep the needy wanting more. This is the leftist way and has been for centuries. Perhaps we should take from the rcih...like the hollywood elite...a nice fat tax on their net worth...say 80%...what do they really 'need it for'? Bet that would not fly with you leftist as you buy your politicians off. Prhaps instead of asking for money to feed the poor, you could give up 80% of your money to feed the poor. Really, $1M from a hollywood liberal who has $500M and we are supposed to think they are generous.
Perhaps it is these folks who should fund the public(social) airwaves???
You left who think freedom is free sicken the rest of us.
I thought hope and change was supposed to close Gitmo, get us out of all foriegn lands and get the rest of the world to love us because we 'understood' and blah blah. Well, news flash, the rest of the world is laughing at us (again - thanks Carter), and think our leaders are weak, immature and naive. Read the news (not just listen to CNN and MSNBC) and you'll get the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Most of your statements are not 'the leftist way' but just what most of the right want people to think of the left. i'm not saying the left doesn't have its fair share of corruption, but its by and large not as bad as you make it out to be. if you truly believe that, you're no longer thinking for yourself. the left and the right are both corrupt.
Also, you need to work on your writing skills. To be honest, I can barely follow your thoughts. They're all over the place. The punctuation is really confusing too. I don't think you know how to use an ellipsis. Also, i don't know where you're getting this 80% number either.
then your last paragraph is just a mess as well. you must believe you're preaching to the choir because you don't bother explaining *any* point you're making. we don't necessarily believe what you're saying, so you can't just say something is true and expect to persuade or even have a decent debate with anybody.
you come across as someone who thinks that they are absolutely right. i have news for you, you're not. that's a fact. i don't know if you just want to try to insult individuals or what, but your purpose for commenting is largely lost on me. if you're not trying to persuade somebody to your point of view, then you're only doing this to convey some sense of 'holier than thou' attitude that you're right, everybody else is wrong. its completely hypocritical and in the end, devoid of any real meaning.
i could throw in a jab and say this is typical of the right... but i feel the joke would be lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy. They like NASCAR and hate PBS and NPR. One of the biggest mistakes we make is to assume everyone has a logical basis for their subjective opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Psh, easy.
entities by way of selling advertisements, exactly as other radio/television corporations do. They have no need of public backing.
NASCAR, on the other hand, is a HUGE money making proposition for whomever hosts a race. I've seen towns of 50,000 people spring up in the middle of nowhere and persist for more than a week at NASCAR events. And everybody who goes there buys gas and snacks on their way to and from the event. It short, it means putting some money into NASCAR likely gets you even more money out of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Psh, easy.
You just made the argument that both of these items are similar when it comes to the budget. Look, it's either you get rid of the funding for both of them or you get rid of the funding for neither. Getting rid of one and not the other (no matter which of the two is removed) is just politics as usual. We need better than that right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Psh, easy.
All I'm saying is there is no profit to be made by dumping money into NPR or PBS--and they have no real need of the money (for doubters, try looking at job listings for either).
There is, however, definite profit to be made from NASCAR. At the very least, we should be pleased our politicians can do simple math and tell the difference between positive and negative income.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Psh, easy.
Oh no, the US Army is crowding out private investment in NASCAR!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Psh, easy.
entities by way of selling advertisements, exactly as other radio/television corporations do. They have no need of public backing."
NASCAR managed to become profit making entities by way of selling advertisements (and tickets, and merchandise, ad deals, selling ads, and many more) just like every other sporting league does. they have no need of public backing.
it's really funny how ridiculously blind you are to the double standard you're making.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Psh, easy.
Did you miss that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Psh, easy.
Please provide evidence that the US Army is hosting a race.
So does Burning Man. Either the US Army should support NASCAR and Burning Man, or neither.
Is the US Army holding a bake sale, whereby sponsoring a car will increase the number of pies that get sold?
Please provide evidence where the US Army "gets...even more money out of it".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Psh, easy.
"All or Nothing" is a false dichotomy. Try again.
Sorry, I left the State multi-tiered comprehensive income database in my other pants. However, feel free to demonstrate how the Army's NASCAR investment is not a cost effective method of recruitment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Psh, easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Psh, easy.
I'm more interested in why you think NASCAR will stop having races in the US if they don't get free money from the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Psh, easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Psh, easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Psh, easy.
NPR has just turned into a democrat shill agency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Psh, easy.
So what kind of RoI has NASCR promised Congress?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's (in my opinion) pretty dumb, and would be dumb even if the NASCAR sponsorship were more effective advertising, but it isn't inconsistent.
There's plenty of "keep the government away from my Medicare" hypocrisy out there in the Republican party these days, but this particular juxtaposition is fully consistent with the party's (dangerously short-sighted) philosophy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
as someone who has no intension to ever join(wouldn't go unless this government starts doing better, no amount of money or legal treats could make me risk my life), and in the age group that they target to brain wash(late middle school to a few months till out of highschool) I CAN SAY THEY SPEND TO MUCH AND IT DOESNT WORK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Seriously. Black budget should not exist. Statistically speaking there's only a very few secrets of national importance. There's huge numbers of career-ending blunders and opportunities for graft, kickbacks & etc.
Statistically speaking, the black budget is guaranteed to be all waste. That's right, all fat, and no meat. Ditch it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, while you might argue that the armed forces have no business spending so much money on marketing, I hardly think this is about someone liking NASCAR.
Personally, I can't stand NASCAR, so I can understand why it would grate on your nerves that they budget dollars for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nascar VS. PBS
PBS and NPR get much of their funding from the NEA. Without debating the merits of Art in our society a clear core vs. context argument can be made here.
Additionally, with the prevalence of youth cable programming and local radio stations, the historic justification for NPR and PBS are less and less compelling.
Budgets need to be cut. I would submit we need to focus on context, but not exclude core. You can argue that the military's budget needs cut, but arguing that advertising at NASCAR doesn't reach the correct audience would be a stretch at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nascar VS. PBS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nascar VS. PBS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nascar VS. PBS
And who knew they were hiring?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nascar VS. PBS
budgets do need to be cut. cut out four JSF from the final order and fund PBS and NPR for years and years. I would suggest you would be getting a much hire ROI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nascar VS. PBS
Historically, the availability of cable programs for children has never impacted the segment of the population that watches PBS.
In other words, they're poor, dumbass. They can't afford Sprout.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nascar VS. PBS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nascar VS. PBS
I'd totally take that bet, if there were a reliable place to view the demographics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nascar VS. PBS
B) If we were talking about kids programming (we were not) I'm relatively sure that the parents that limit their kids to PBS or other "educational" programming are the more affluent ones.
C) It seems every poor family had cable and 3 TVs. I pay for it, apparently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nascar VS. PBS
Yes, actually, it is like that. Because not only is the majority of their programming for kids, but the programming with the highest viewership is for kids. No matter how you slice it, PBS is primarily a kid's channel.
If we were talking about kids programming (we were not)...
Actually, some of us were. Specifically, the justification for PBS.
...I'm relatively sure that the parents that limit their kids to PBS or other "educational" programming are the more affluent ones.
We weren't discussing parental limits, we were discussing economic limits. Children without cable generally don't have other choices. It's PBS or nothing.
Well, I guess talk shows aren't nothing exactly, but what was your childhood preference? Children's shows or soap operas?
Parents with cable choices may choose to limit their children to PBS, but why would they bother when Sprout runs children's programming - with many of the same shows - 24 hours a day?
It seems every poor family had cable and 3 TVs.
Really? Did you actually know any poor families? Because all of the poor families I knew, including my own, had one TV, local channels, and a limited amount of furniture space.
Of course, cable isn't even offered in many rural areas, so I really am unsure where you're getting these ideas from.
...I pay for it, apparently.
You pay for what? Their non-existent cable? Explain, Lucy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nascar VS. PBS
No, PBS is not majority kids content. (might I point out that we were really talking about funding for public broacasting company, which includes both NPR and PBS, and NPR is where most of the problem is, but hell, PBS has it's problem too.)
I think it's just silly that you think the majority of poor families give up cable TV. It would be nice if they did, that certainly should be the first thing they cut, but it isn't. And I know for a fact, that many, many, the vast majority, of families either on welfare, or in public housing, have cable. Many of them, btw, I have noticed have strangely nice cars. If you fit in these categories, and this doesn't apply to you, great, very good for you, but it just isn't the norm.
ANd lastly, I challenge your assertion that families limited to over-the-air TV by their incomes mostly watch PBS. I would think that it would be great if they did, I'm actually very supportive of PBS as an educational tool, I certainly love NOVA, and I think it could help break the cycle of poor=uneducated. But it's just not the way of it. If you are the exception, again, hats of to you, but it's just not the norm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nascar VS. PBS
That's rich coming from a guy that has asserted that Planned Parenthood is primarily an abortion service and that PBS has a liberal* slant.
*I'm non-partisan.
No, PBS is not majority kids content.
Source?
And I know for a fact, that many, many, the vast majority, of families either on welfare, or in public housing, have cable.
Source?
I challenge your assertion that families limited to over-the-air TV by their incomes mostly watch PBS.
I never stated that families without cable mostly watch PBS. I stated that children without cable are more likely to watch PBS than children with cable. I stand by this postulate, but freely admit that this opinion is anecdotal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fta: "... eliminating funding for CPB, estimating that it would save the government $500 million in 2015"
This could cover an additional two days of our unfunded expenditures in Iraq & Afghanistan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silly Post
Comparing the NASCAR sponsorship to NPR funding? You might as well say the feds are sponsoring the NY Times and NBC when they buy recruiting ads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"panem et circenses"
(Bread and Games) as the roman Poet Juvenal said.
Basically, education is not essential for any government to stay in power. A distracted public on the other hand is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid debate
The Army on the other hand does care because it is damn good advertising. NASCAR fans are very loyal to the sponsor's of their favortie drivers. According to Col. Crotts 46,000 out of the 150,000 leads Army recruiters get each year come through motorsport events (Google it). If you sponsor a good driver, for a couple million a year you can get a ton of air-time. A lot more than buying commercial slots.
The real question that should be asked is should the budget for advertising for the Army be cut, not who the Army is allowed to advertise with. If they want to cut that budget, then fine, do so and let the Army figure out where they want to spend the money they end up getting. This is one of the most asinine debates I have seen in a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy explanation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think it strange
Isnt there a Level of government that is SUPPOSED to be responsible to the tax payer(?) with this knowledge that can TELL US IN ENGLISH and simple language, where the money went?
I also find it very strange, that Many Laws/bills/.. past in congress have these ADDONS, that ask/transport/send money to OTHER SOURCES besides what the BILL IS to pay for.
Going thru all the paper work, and finally deciding WHERE the money went/is going, would be worse then the paper work for a Muti-tiered Corp and all the subsidiaries.(thats how people steal Millions and it takes years to find out)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think it strange
It's the only arm of the government, that I'm aware of, that actually does a damn good job. The problem is they don't have any enforcement powers. They sit on the sidelines, slam various agencies for being all screwed up, and then nothing comes of it.
The really screwed up part is if we actually gave them real power instead of them actually fixing things all the other agencies would become interested in the GAO and start gaining influence and screwing it up like everything is screwed up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure, but your not going to like it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
BTW, it's "you're" as in "you are" not "your".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which is more important to our current elected officials: smart, independent, and informed citizens? or more cogs for their war machine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The best defense is a good offense eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Brain: That's a simple task, Pinky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Regadless, dude, yes, I rate convincing young men to give 4 years of their life fighting abroad (which is much, much better than them fighting here) as much more important than funding entertainment and biased journalism that there's already a market for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) Fighting for what, exactly. The fed is tasked with defense of this country, not world domination.
2) Four years is apparently not enough these days is it?
I'm in favor of the volunteer army in lieu of the draft. The fact that they have to advertise is telling in itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Says the daughter of Air Force parents, relative of Army and Navy family, wife to a veteran Marine, living in a military town.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I mean, it's possible that dragons will be genetically designed sometime in the future, escape their masters, and run rampant overseas, requiring Marine intervention...
...but it's not likely. :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's really no comparison between the two item spends, as quite a few later commenters have pointed out.
The army "sponsoring" a team in NASCAR is really a pure advertising spend, no different than any of their other recruiting efforts. It would be just as appropriate to say the military "funds" comedy central or wherever else they advertise. It's also some low millions of dollars, perfectly in line with other media campaigns. Whether that's worthwhile or not is really a pure marketing decision, no more complicated than that.
On the other hand, the government really does "fund" and sponsor PBS in the traditional sense, and perhaps more troublingly, NPR. It's ~$450 million or so, and there's actually a lot of obfuscation on this number, it could be a good bit more in total. Now, trotting out sesame street is a little like saying "we censored for the children," isn't? We all like Kermit, and I'm a huge Nova fan besides. Problem is that a huge part of that budget goes to shows that really liberal advocacy programs, especially on NPR. How would you feel if the NYT (liberal) or Foxnews (conservative) were 20% funded by the federal government? It would be a huge problem, I'm pretty sure you would agree.
It's public funding of a company in a market that is thriving quite well without the help. If PBS can't survive on it's own merits, than it shouldn't survive.
There is no equivalency between these two programs, but Gail Collins would deeply like you to think there is, and apparently she succeeded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Matt Bennett
Furthermore, as is mentioned above, DoD is not "funding" NASCAR anymore than Pepsi is funding NBC. I must echo the disappointment in Mike that others have said; how frequently do we discuss on this site the difference between posters and site owners? DoD is using the forum of a NASCAR car sponsorship to reach potential recruits (and very effectively as has been shown above). CPB, PBS, NPR on the other hand are analogous to the forum itself, which is funded directly by tax payer dollars.
If Mike has a problem with encouraging military recruiting, he can feel free to espouse that, but it is not hypocritical for critics of NPR to stand behind funding of (successful) military recruitment advertising, while concurrently seeking to remove funding for political rhetoric.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Matt Bennett
I'm pretty sure that Between the Lions, Arthur, and the like are apolitical as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
NPR is only "Liberal" because it makes you think.
Conservatives don't like that cause they would rather tell you want to think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the lie big
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As pointed out by some, the Army/NASCAR relationship is one of advertising paid out of the Army's recruitment (marketing) budget. The relationship from the Army/NASCAR funding to the funding of both PBS and NPR is, at best, that federal government funds are used for both.
"I think there are some creative things that both NPR and PBS could do to make up the difference if they lost federal funding. However, if we are going to cut public broadcasting, then it seems only reasonable to cut sponsoring NASCAR as well, doesn't it?"
If we are going to cut funding for the arts it only seems reasonable to stop the Marines from making all those cool commercials right? It's the same comparison.
There are perfectly valid debates and points that can be brought up separately about both these spending items, but lumping them together is simply asking for repub vs dem flame wars with no real content because they can't be intelligently compared to each other. Mike, I know this is a free site, but I've come to expect better of you.
Personally I think the federal government massively overspends on just about everything and has it's hands in things it has no business in. I think we should have a much smaller federal government and the state governments should pick up the slack (which I would expect to involve higher taxes in most cases). The federal governments ability to royally screw up is directly proportional to it's size and power.
I'd also like to point out that no party has ever made the federal government actually smaller.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wish there were no money to be made in it. If people stopped supporting Nascar maybe we'd have fewer people having relations with their sister/cousin/mothers and raping dogs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Considering that NASCAR actually entered into a relationship with Harlequin Romance to produce romance novels with NASCAR theme but "Nascar has put some limits on these branded Harlequin books in order to maintain its family image: no booze, no drugs, no sex." I'm not sure who the average NASCAR fan is now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spokane county bought a NASCAR raceway with taxpayer money
This money losing County owned business was bought and paid for by taxpayers because the local county commissioners saw it as a way to buy "NASCAR votes" from this blue collar community. Sad but true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why does Nascar want money from our armed forces?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why does Nascar want money from our armed forces?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course the real reason for the congress to fund NASCAR is that FOX runs a bunch of the races-- Just like in politics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
apples and oranges
As far as NASCAR is concerned, I question the wisdom of spending tax dollars to recruit there; you're talking to a convinced audience. Scarce marketing dollars should instead be channeled into markets that need more convincing.
Plus, I think anybody who believes that public broadcasting isn't being targeted for political reasons is completely out of touch; "liberal" public broadcasting has been the target of the right for years and this current political climate is an opportunity to get even, even if it means contributing to the dumbing down of the population. Public broadcasting is about as conservative as any mainstram programming source; in recent years they've bent over backwards to give all sides a voice and have really pulled punches on outing the liars for fear of being accused of taking sides. Perceptions of "liberalism," I fear, are a holdover from the 80's, like calling the Washington Post "liberal."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: apples and oranges
But riddle me this, if they were really "as conservative as any mainstream programming source" (let's not get into what a laugh that is) then why, oh why, would republicans be so enraged by their being funded by the federal government?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: apples and oranges
That's right. Why just the other day I saw on Nova a discussion of evolution as if it were something that could really happen. I was outraged! And then they had the nerve to broadcast both sides of the global climate change thingie. Who do they think they are anyways. They even try to convince you that the earth goes around the sun - egads, that's enough to make yer head explode.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges
Regardless, you failed to contest the point. If they weren't promoting a liberal agenda (a real one, not this "evolution" voodoo you're going on about) then why would conservatives care one way or the other?
Fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges
So, which "liberal" topic found on PBS is objectionable? Please be specific.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges
Which show, exactly, is more biased than Fox? Between the Lions, Zooboomafu, the Nightly Business Report, or Nova?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: apples and oranges
I mean seriously, you gloss over the huge impact that these programs can have over an entire lifetime and push kids to die in foreign wars that cost more in one day than one year of programming. What kind of monster are you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: apples and oranges
PBS is a public service, and you should be grateful that it even exists in the climate of Faux news and MSNo News Here. Yet it's being defunded to help run a 'war' that the US is losing, because it doesn't know how to cellularise the military.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges
No, it's less than 1% of what they do, as a whole, and many locations don't even offer abortion services, although they can generally point you in the direction of a for-profit abortion provider.
Not a single PP in my state offers abortion, but they all offer low-cost exams, birth control, and free condoms, all of which were particularly important services when I was a teenager.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges
Your assertions are ridiculous on their face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges
Source?
Your assertions are ridiculous on their face.
My assertions are backed up by facts. Yours seem to be backed up by partisan FUD.
Contraception constitutes over a third of their services, while STD testing and treatment takes up another third. A fifth of their services are concerned with cancer screening, and a tenth of their services concern other women's health procedures, including pregnancy, prenatal, midlife, and infertility-related services.
Less than than one-twentieth of their services are abortion-related.
Now, please explain how >one-twentieth equals 'mostly'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges
If you're a liberal, you should be perfectly fine with government funding for abortions because forcing women to bear children is flat-out wrong.
If you're a conservative, then you should be perfectly fine with government funding for abortions because they're a fraction of the cost of prenatal care, welfare, or any number of programs that we offer for poor children.
If you're non-partisan, you should be perfectly fine with government funding for abortions because a lack of legal, affordable abortion services leads to the Kermit Gosnell's of the world popping up all over America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt is being hypocritical
Public broadcasting has more in common with the legacy media groups than is being highlighted here. The successful enterprises, like Sesame Street, will have no trouble surviving any government cuts. While those properties that fail in the marketplace will no longer be produced. This may be disheartening to those who think America is being "dumbed down," but it is entirely consistent with the Techdirtian view of economics.
It seems to me hypocritical to support the use of the power of the federal government to confiscate money from Americans to fund television and radio programs that cannot survive the free markets. Techdirt is constantly talking about alternative business/funding models for content creation - surely these highly prized Public Broadcasting properties can find sponsorship through one of these models. If not, I don't think they will be missed, since no one will be engaging with them anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt is being hypocritical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt is being hypocritical
In addition, I do not see educational material coming out of either the RIAA or the MPAA. Determining what should be made available as educational material should not be left to the market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt is being hypocritical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt is being hypocritical
Wow, you are really stupid. The tagline about 'Viewers Like You' doesn't mean that 8-year-old children give their pocket money to PBS. It means that your tax money funds them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt is being hypocritical
I disagree. Techdirt has a problem with government-backed monopolies for legacy business models that are interfering with innovation and/or competition. PBS and NPR (and libraries, which they've previously defended) aren't interfering with innovation or blocking competition.
In fact, you can't even call public broadcasting a monopoly, since the market has provided so much quality competition that some people believe that PBS and NPR are no longer needed. That certainly doesn't sound like a monopoly to me.
It seems to me hypocritical to support the use of the power of the federal government to confiscate money from Americans to fund television and radio programs that cannot survive the free markets.
So you think Techdirt should also support defunding prenatal care, public schools, public roads, and libraries because they can't survive the free market? That's certainly interesting.
I think you're confusing Mike Masnick's belief in what the market can do with his belief in what people should do. There is a difference, you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The answer is amazingly simple...
Junket anyone? (after all the taxpayers funded it - we should get to use them)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The answer is amazingly simple...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The answer is amazingly simple...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NASCAR is just entertainment for which you don't have to think.
Just sit there and watch those drivers make left hand turns, eat your popcorn, drink your beer, and get fat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy
On the other hand, how much of an uproar would there be if the Army started branding a kid's show like Sesame Street? Liberal parents would be writing daily letters in opposition!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy
On the other hand, how much of an uproar would there be if the Army started branding a kid's show like Sesame Street? Liberal parents would be writing daily letters in opposition!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy
On the other hand, how much of an uproar would there be if the Army started branding a kid's show like Sesame Street? Liberal parents would be writing daily letters in opposition!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you want government funding you cater to the politicians not what is best for the people
Sesame Street is often to confusing to most politicians, the words are big and the concepts are difficult to understand - Especially that silly sharing concept. The Math makes no sense at all as all politicians know that 1 + 1 = 3 for sufficiently large values of 1.
It is obvious if you want government funding you cater to the politicians not what is best for the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not that simple
NASCAR does raise a lot of interest and money, but it has it's downside too. Gateway Speedway in St. Louis has closed recently, completely.. why? Because after 5+ years of being promised a cup-series race by NASCAR, they took the race to Arkansas (or Oklohoma, don't remember which).. The track here couldn't cover expenses after that and closed. So everyone in the area loses NASCAR, NHRA, SCCA and club racing. Yep, they sure deserve my tax dollars...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not that simple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This past Daytona 500 set viewership records, actually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
info for you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe we ought to take care of the veterans this country currently has instead of trying to get new recruits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What does this have to do with how our tax dollars are spent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We always seem to forget Right of Way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's just sad. They aren't elected reps, they aren't even politicians, they're individuals who have figured out how to make money of the "people" they claim to represent. Do you think ANYONE of them, their families, or their friends are affected by ANY of the cuts they're making? Hell no, their families/friends are doing just fine, making millions, it's off the backs of the "everyman" they make their money, and will continue to do so as long as the "everyman" screams "dirt liberals!" whenever we try to make them see the truth.
At this point I'm seriously considering going Tyler Durden on the whole bunch. Who's with me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NASCAR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marketing Budget? Its still my tax dollars
The GOP is slashing funding for The National Weather Service and NOAA, Planned Parenthood, National Education Association, healthcare for women, etc. etc., all valuable needed services, yet think it logical to continue giving our tax dollars to NASCAR racing teams (I don't give a flip if its marketing or not).....its still my money!!! Come on people. Lets please get our priorities straight!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Advertisement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nascar - PBS
I have known PBS gets money from the gov for a long time. I did not know NASCAR was also getting gov. freebies.
I believe the majority of Americans have no idea where the Gov. is spreading it's largess. Do you know that the Queen of England has farmland holdings in the United States and receives a US Government Farm Subsidy check each year.? The politicians of both parties are guilty of these outrageous subsidies to special interests. Fire the bastards and bring in some "NEW' bastards.!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]