RE: Should Government Subsidize The News?

RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

kdsub -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 1:54:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Maybe I don't understand but if the government is only going to provide newspapers a tax break what is the problem. They would have no individual control over a particular newspaper would they? I mean they could not remove or apply a separate tax rate on an individual paper who they did not agree with?... Or do I have it wrong? Butch If you think that is as far as they will go, good luck. Obama is running GM, wants to run Chrysler. The government wont take back TARP money from banks that object to the controls that the government is now trying to force on them. Whether its through the tax code or legislation, this administration wants the power to run anything they see fit to run. I want you to be technical with me and tell me how Obama would control an individual paper… what could he use for leverage ?

janiebelle -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 1:59:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual quote: ORIGINAL: janiebelle The BBC is like any other network, run by people with corporate or government linked agendas, that is no more there with an interest for "truth" than the Cartoon Network. "Agenda Free Reporting", "Truth", and other such fairy tales just don't exist in the stanglehold of government controlled airwaves. The internet is the closest thing we have to uncontrolled media. It's changed the way people can, and do, choose to view the world. Instantaeous transmission, zero censorship before the fact, widely available for the sending and receiving of boatloads of data...the world, she is a changin', and the TV networks should thank their lucky stars that they have the advantage of pervasiveness to save them from the fate of the print news. j Just remember that the "uncontrolled" internet has no journalistic standards or ethics to guide it. While believing everything you read / watch was never a good idea, believing ANYTHING you read/watch on the internet from an unverified source isnt a good idea. Valid point. Having to reseearch, gather data, and come up with an informed opinion for your own self is a considerably bigger PITA than believing a talking head. However, the breadth and depth of info that the opinion is then based upon allows these critical thinkers to come up with an opinion that was at least considered under some form of rationale instead of coming right from the corporate Satans via their minions in the msm. Not that I'm a skeptic. [;)] j

CruelNUnsual -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 4:10:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Maybe I don't understand but if the government is only going to provide newspapers a tax break what is the problem. They would have no individual control over a particular newspaper would they? I mean they could not remove or apply a separate tax rate on an individual paper who they did not agree with?... Or do I have it wrong? Butch If you think that is as far as they will go, good luck. Obama is running GM, wants to run Chrysler. The government wont take back TARP money from banks that object to the controls that the government is now trying to force on them. Whether its through the tax code or legislation, this administration wants the power to run anything they see fit to run. I want you to be technical with me and tell me how Obama would control an individual paper… what could he use for leverage ? Easy, fire one editor for any reason under the sun, and watch the rest of them fall in line. You have read about the threats against GM's suppliers in bankruptcy? Those are companies that havent received a dime from the government, but they were forced into accepting a deal that wasn't in their shareholders best interest.

CruelNUnsual -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 4:12:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: janiebelle quote: ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual quote: ORIGINAL: janiebelle The BBC is like any other network, run by people with corporate or government linked agendas, that is no more there with an interest for "truth" than the Cartoon Network. "Agenda Free Reporting", "Truth", and other such fairy tales just don't exist in the stanglehold of government controlled airwaves. The internet is the closest thing we have to uncontrolled media. It's changed the way people can, and do, choose to view the world. Instantaeous transmission, zero censorship before the fact, widely available for the sending and receiving of boatloads of data...the world, she is a changin', and the TV networks should thank their lucky stars that they have the advantage of pervasiveness to save them from the fate of the print news. j Just remember that the "uncontrolled" internet has no journalistic standards or ethics to guide it. While believing everything you read / watch was never a good idea, believing ANYTHING you read/watch on the internet from an unverified source isnt a good idea. Valid point. Having to reseearch, gather data, and come up with an informed opinion for your own self is a considerably bigger PITA than believing a talking head. However, the breadth and depth of info that the opinion is then based upon allows these critical thinkers to come up with an opinion that was at least considered under some form of rationale instead of coming right from the corporate Satans via their minions in the msm. Not that I'm a skeptic. [;)] j If you actually find a critical thinker who achieves an audience on the internet. The vast majority are idealogues who dont know critical thinking from critical mass.

kdsub -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 4:15:15 PM)
They are not giving them money I thought...just a tax break... they will have no leverage to fire...because once they have the tax break there is no exception for a particular paper to get a break or not. With a bank or GM they are giving money and do have leverage… that will not be the case with a tax-exempt clause. Butch

CruelNUnsual -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 4:18:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub They are not giving them money I thought...just a tax break... they will have no leverage to fire...because once they have the tax break there is no exception for a particular paper to get a break or not. With a bank or GM they are giving money and do have leverage… that will not be the case with a tax-exempt clause. Butch A tax break is money, and if you dont think they can condition tax breaks in such a way that gives the government control over a company, you havent read the IRC lately! There are numerous provision of the tax code that are worded in such a way as to benefit precisely one company, or a narrow group of companies. Tax legislation/regulation can just as easily be written to exclude companies that don't behave in an "acceptable manner".

Politesub53 -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 4:22:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual If you think that is as far as they will go, good luck. Obama is running GM, wants to run Chrysler. The government wont take back TARP money from banks that object to the controls that the government is now trying to force on them. Whether its through the tax code or legislation, this administration wants the power to run anything they see fit to run. Two points, one you are wrong, Obama doesnt want to run Chrysler, he has given them 30 days to do a deal, or he will stop the funding. The following was a staement he made, no doubt you will say he is a liar. quote: In an address from the White House, Mr Obama said his administration had "no intention" of running GM, and said that "these companies - and this industry - must ultimately stand on their own, not as wards of the state". Secondly, what would you have done differently to avoid the collapse of the motor industry ?

Politesub53 -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 4:30:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: janiebelle The BBC is like any other network, run by people with corporate or government linked agendas, that is no more there with an interest for "truth" than the Cartoon Network. "Agenda Free Reporting", "Truth", and other such fairy tales just don't exist in the stanglehold of government controlled airwaves. The internet is the closest thing we have to uncontrolled media. It's changed the way people can, and do, choose to view the world. Instantaeous transmission, zero censorship before the fact, widely available for the sending and receiving of boatloads of data...the world, she is a changin', and the TV networks should thank their lucky stars that they have the advantage of pervasiveness to save them from the fate of the print news. j Your post shows little knowledge of how the BBC operates. It was specifically set up to be politically independent of the government.

kdsub -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 4:33:00 PM)
A tax break will not put pressure on a paper anymore than it does a church...you do realize how many papers there are in this country. Do you expect the government to go around to each of the 10,000 or more periodicals in this nation and set up rules... that will not fly I hope you understand that. It is not practical politically or materially. Loans and tax exemptions are two completely different things. If they were not then all churches would now toe the line on abortion and birth control with the Democratic agenda. I don’t know about you but I don’t see that happening tax exemptions or not.. Butch

kdsub -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 4:42:51 PM)
May I ask who appoints the trustees?

Politesub53 -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 5:05:27 PM)
Here you go Butch. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/about/index.html

kdsub -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 5:12:33 PM)
I had already read that thread...but it does not state who appoints the trustees If it is the government then how can they be considered independent? Butch

Politesub53 -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 5:25:32 PM)
Ministers are advised by civil servants, who should be impartial. I will look for another source tomorrow.

janiebelle -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 7:16:42 PM)
Politically independent is a neat trick not often accomplished in a situation of economic dependency. j

CruelNUnsual -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 8:28:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual If you think that is as far as they will go, good luck. Obama is running GM, wants to run Chrysler. The government wont take back TARP money from banks that object to the controls that the government is now trying to force on them. Whether its through the tax code or legislation, this administration wants the power to run anything they see fit to run. Two points, one you are wrong, Obama doesnt want to run Chrysler, he has given them 30 days to do a deal, or he will stop the funding. The following was a staement he made, no doubt you will say he is a liar. quote: In an address from the White House, Mr Obama said his administration had "no intention" of running GM, and said that "these companies - and this industry - must ultimately stand on their own, not as wards of the state". Secondly, what would you have done differently to avoid the collapse of the motor industry ? He said he didnt want to run GM either and then fired the CEO. He doesnt want to run Chrysler but he pays back the union by giving them 55% of the company. Yes, he is a liar, and he's proven it several times when his actions don't match his rhetoric. As opposed to claims of Bush lying when his actions and words were totally consistent and there hasn't been a single shred of evidence that he didnt believe what he was saying. I would have done several things differently: First, no bail out. Bankruptcy procedures would break the stranglehold the UAW has and the business could sort itself out. The industry wouldnt collapse, it would streamline. Second, level the playing field in international trade. Either other countries reduce tariffs on our exports, or we raise tariffs on their cars coming in to the same level. Third, modify CAFE standards so that they actually do what they are intended to do...increase fuel efficiency. Instead they penalize the auto companies for consumer choices for the larger (and safer) cars in a given companies fleet. Fourth, standardize emissions standards from state to state so special manufacturing/parts to meet different CARB/non-CARB standards isnt needed.

CruelNUnsual -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 8:33:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub A tax break will not put pressure on a paper anymore than it does a church...you do realize how many papers there are in this country. Do you expect the government to go around to each of the 10,000 or more periodicals in this nation and set up rules... that will not fly I hope you understand that. It is not practical politically or materially. Loans and tax exemptions are two completely different things. If they were not then all churches would now toe the line on abortion and birth control with the Democratic agenda. I don’t know about you but I don’t see that happening tax exemptions or not.. Butch Rules for 10,000 periodicals isnt needed. Pressure on a handful of the largest is quite sufficient to change the behavior of all of them. Loans and tax exemptions are not that different. They both lower a companies cost of doing business, either through lower operating costs or lower cost of capital. They hit the bottom line nearly indentically. Church's are a totally different animal, at least until the SCOTUS manages to modify the interpretation of separation of Church and State. Until then Churchs cant be taxed under the constitution. Nice strawman attempt.

kdsub -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 8:40:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub A tax break will not put pressure on a paper anymore than it does a church...you do realize how many papers there are in this country. Do you expect the government to go around to each of the 10,000 or more periodicals in this nation and set up rules... that will not fly I hope you understand that. It is not practical politically or materially. Loans and tax exemptions are two completely different things. If they were not then all churches would now toe the line on abortion and birth control with the Democratic agenda. I don’t know about you but I don’t see that happening tax exemptions or not.. Butch Rules for 10,000 periodicals isnt needed. Pressure on a handful of the largest is quite sufficient to change the behavior of all of them. Loans and tax exemptions are not that different. They both lower a companies cost of doing business, either through lower operating costs or lower cost of capital. They hit the bottom line nearly indentically. Church's are a totally different animal, at least until the SCOTUS manages to modify the interpretation of separation of Church and State. Until then Churchs cant be taxed under the constitution. Nice strawman attempt. I don't think the Boone County press will give up a tax break because Obama is trying to put pressure on the New York times... money talks they could care less. Butch

CruelNUnsual -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/8/2009 8:44:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub A tax break will not put pressure on a paper anymore than it does a church...you do realize how many papers there are in this country. Do you expect the government to go around to each of the 10,000 or more periodicals in this nation and set up rules... that will not fly I hope you understand that. It is not practical politically or materially. Loans and tax exemptions are two completely different things. If they were not then all churches would now toe the line on abortion and birth control with the Democratic agenda. I don’t know about you but I don’t see that happening tax exemptions or not.. Butch Rules for 10,000 periodicals isnt needed. Pressure on a handful of the largest is quite sufficient to change the behavior of all of them. Loans and tax exemptions are not that different. They both lower a companies cost of doing business, either through lower operating costs or lower cost of capital. They hit the bottom line nearly indentically. Church's are a totally different animal, at least until the SCOTUS manages to modify the interpretation of separation of Church and State. Until then Churchs cant be taxed under the constitution. Nice strawman attempt. I don't think the Boone County press will give up a tax break because Obama is trying to put pressure on the New York times... money talks they could care less. Butch You are missing my point. The pressure they can put on the a large paper IS on their tax break, and the Boone County press will follow that lead to retain their own tax break.

Politesub53 -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/9/2009 4:39:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: janiebelle Politically independent is a neat trick not often accomplished in a situation of economic dependency. j To be honest, the whole system for the BBC has worked well enough for 80+ years. If you check the current BBC web site you will see stories critical of HMG ( Her Majestys government ) Butch, Here is another link from the same web site. It explains in a bit more detail how appointments are made. DCMS stands for Department of Cultrue, Media and Sport. While this is a civil service department, their own rules disallow them to be politically biased. There is also a completely external check, in the shape of indepent media services. You can bet the press would relish a chance to prove HMG ( any party ) were using the BBC for political purposes. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/about/bbc_trust_members/how_members_are_appointed.html

Sanity -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/9/2009 8:01:27 AM)
Anyone doing the slightest bit of casual research will soon discover that the BBC is hopelessly, shamelessly tilted towards the left, biased blatantly towards whatever agenda the government-paid charlatans who control it desire. The BBC is a perfect example of government preaching propaganda to the masses in order to justify itself and the things it does in the name of its citizens.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875