Still working to recover. Please don't edit quite yet.

Social programs cut by 112th USA Congress

From Anarchopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The programs are small, the problems that cutting them are supposed to solve, huge. But counting on fooling enough Americans enough of the time is something the establishment (and its bastions it knows stands just within reach to the right) have grown accustomed to.


See also: Public Broadcasting Service

The states spend much more than the US federal government, and the licence fee holders spend much more than the UK government, but that's not the issue here. Those who wish to cut PBS funding are declaring huge savings for the federal government, but that argument is shown to be utterly impractical. Are they just impractical? Or is there another motivation?

The USA had a population between 281,421,906 (2000 Census) and 308,745,538 (2010 Census)[1] in 2005, when the federal government spent $456K on PBS, mostly via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (WP).[2]

This works out to between 0.15 cent per person and 0.16 (100 cents to the dollar, but you should know that already).[3]

The UK had a population in 2004 of 59,8 million people[4] £294.6 million was spent on the BBC from government grants; $472,302,720[5]

This works out to $8.03 per person. And that's just what the government spent. The licence fees brought in more than 10 times that much (£3,493.8 million).

So the US federal government spends roughly 0.00018 times, or .018%, as much on public broadcasting as the UK government. Not just a drop in the bucket, but a drop in the ocean.


As deficit reduction[edit]

Ran it up in the first place with wars

As financial stimulus[edit]

The middlemen are the weak link

Protection against job killers[edit]

And the Republican cure for ad nauseum is...?

As New World Order[edit]

As Pox Americana[edit]

  • because I said so
  • population 2004 58,789,194 in the 2001 Census
  • Annual reports and reviews dead link Annual report 2009-10 good luck in that maze