Still working to recover. Please don't edit quite yet.
Difference between revisions of "Social programs cut by 112th USA Congress"
Anarchangel (Talk | contribs) (Start) |
Anarchangel (Talk | contribs) (....PBS) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
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. | 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. | ||
| − | == The | + | == PBS == |
| + | {{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)<ref>[http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-pop-text.php Census.gov]</ref> in 2005, when the federal government spent $456K on PBS, mostly via the [[Corporation for Public Broadcasting]] [[Wikipedia:Corporation for Public Broadcasting|(WP)]].<ref name=Rev>http://www.cpb.org/stations/reports/revenue/2005PublicBroadcastingRevenue.pdf</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | This works out to between 0.15 cent per person and 0.16 (100 cents to the dollar, but you should know that already).<ref>because I said so</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | The UK had a population in 2004 of 59,8 million people<ref>[http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/fom2005/01_FOPM_Population.pdf population 2004] 58,789,194 in the 2001 Census</ref> £294.6 million was spent on the BBC from government grants; $472,302,720<ref name=>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/annual_reports_and_reviews/annual_report_and_accounts/BBC_Annual_Report_2008_09.pdf Annual reports and reviews] dead link [http://www.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/ Annual report 2009-10] good luck in that maze</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Rationales == | ||
=== As deficit reduction === | === As deficit reduction === | ||
| Line 20: | Line 32: | ||
* [http://www.cleveland.com/livingston/index.ssf/2010/12/partisan_112th_congress_will_m.html Partisan 112th Congress will mix cooperation, conflict starting Jan. 5] | * [http://www.cleveland.com/livingston/index.ssf/2010/12/partisan_112th_congress_will_m.html Partisan 112th Congress will mix cooperation, conflict starting Jan. 5] | ||
| − | |||
=== As New World Order === | === As New World Order === | ||
| Line 27: | Line 38: | ||
=== As Pox Americana === | === As Pox Americana === | ||
* [http://gamingzion.com/gamblingnews/tax-starved-usa-to-introduce-online-gambling-laws-later-this-year-1924 Tax Starved USA to Introduce Online Gambling Laws Later This Year] | * [http://gamingzion.com/gamblingnews/tax-starved-usa-to-introduce-online-gambling-laws-later-this-year-1924 Tax Starved USA to Introduce Online Gambling Laws Later This Year] | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | [[Category:Social issues]][[Category: | + | [[Category:Social issues]][[Category:USA Federal legislation]][[Category:USA budget deficit]][[Category:USA Government social programs]][[Category:Socio-economic issues in the United States of America]] |
Latest revision as of 21:41, 11 March 2011
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.
Contents
PBS[edit]
- 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.
Rationales[edit]
As deficit reduction[edit]
Ran it up in the first place with wars
- "America is Not Broke!": Michael Moore addresses thousands in Madison, Wisconsin March 07, 2011
- As Public Broadcasting and Community Media Face Potentially Massive Cuts at Home, Hillary Clinton Calls for Increased Funding for U.S. Propaganda Overseas
- Union Voices from Madison: "We Will Be Out Here Marching Until Justice is Served"
- Naomi Klein on Anti-Union Bills and Shock Doctrine American-Style: "This is a Frontal Assault on Democracy, It’s a Kind of a Corporate Coup D’Etat"
As financial stimulus[edit]
The middlemen are the weak link
- US Fed Chairman demands plan to cut social programs by Barry Grey "Maintaining the confidence of the financial markets" for the captains of industry
Protection against job killers[edit]
And the Republican cure for ad nauseum is...?
As New World Order[edit]
- Wrecking the American Dream By Stephen Lendman
