On Dec 25, 5:05*pm, "(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) http://
www.LayoffRemedy.com" wrote:
On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 13:38:11 -0800 (PST),

N? ?baMa? wrote:
* * * Petition to Defund National Propaganda Radio - NPR

* * *There's further validation of the term, "RIGHTARD."

- And: *NPR = National PUBLIC Radio, dimwit.

"CC" OK so you got the : NPR =
"National Public Radio" part right.

On Dec 25, 2:29Â*pm, ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung wrote:
On Dec 24, 4:15Â*pm, Ron wrote:





On Dec 24, 3:38Â*pm, N∅ ∅baMa∅
wrote:http://page.townhall.com/DefundNPR/

.
.
This is an old Mantra. Â*Get up to date on NPR funding. Â*Go to:

http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/pu...ofinances.html

Where we read the following, with my added CAPS:

"NPR's revenue comes primarily from fees paid by our member stations,
contributions from corporate sponsors, institutional foundation
grants, gifts from major donors, and fees paid by users of The Public
Radio Satellite System. Â*WE RECEIVE NO DIRECT FEDERAL FUNDING FOR
OPERATIONS. Â*The largest share of NPR's revenue comes from program
fees and station dues paid by member stations that broadcast NPR
programs."

Your post illustrates so much of what is wrong with Wingers. Â*They
rant and rave over subjects about which they know nothing. Â*Zilch.

RO

NPR Derives 41% of Funding From YOUR Taxes

How Public Is NPR's Funding? Options
By Mark Browning

De-fund NPR! In the wake of the firing of Juan Williams by National
Public Radio, we've once again heard conservative voices issue that
call. NPR representatives respond, as they always do when their
dependence on government purse strings is noted, by arguing that only
two or three percent of the service's money comes from the federal
government. NPR apologist Norah O'Donnell recently threw out a one to
three-percent figure on MSNBC.

Norah's New Math Grossly Understates NPR's Fed Fundinghttp://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2010/10/22/norahs-n...

We don't see these people volunteering to give up that three percent,
but we have to admit that this amount of funding is not the gigantic
boondoggle we might prefer to oppose. Is this three-percent number a
fair claim by the NPR crowd? Apparently, in a very limited sense, it
is, but in a more comprehensive analysis, it is nowhere near
accurate.

To understand NPR funding, we have to recognize that public radio is a
two-tier operation. There is, on the one hand, the network itself, the
Washington-based producer of programs that actually terminated Juan
Williams' contract. On the other hand, there is the collection of some
nine hundred NPR affiliate radio stations who bring this programming
to radios around the United States. We cannot hope to understand NPR's
finances without understanding the stations as well, so let's begin
there.

According to information available from the NPR website [Oct 2010],http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/pu...ofinances.html
local radio station money comes from the following sources:

32.1% Â*Individual contributions

21.1% Â*Business contributions

13.6% Â*University funds

10.1% Â*Corporation for Public Broadcasting funds

9.6% Â* Â*Foundation money

5.6% Â* Â*Federal, state, and local government funds

7.6% Â* Â*Other

At first glance, this distribution of funds seems to confirm that
public radio's support does not come in large amounts from the direct
allocation of tax moneys. After all, 5.6% is not a gigantic portion of
the budget, is it? But let's look more closely. That 10.1% that comes
from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is 99% provided by -- you
guessed it -- the federal government. Those university funds, whenever
they are provided by a public university, represent taxpayer-provided
dollars. We can safely assert that three out of four university-
supported stations are publicly funded, which means that more than 10%
(three-quarters of that 13.6%) is taken from the taxpayer's pockets.

So far, we find that NPR member stations count on direct or indirect
taxpayer money for some 25% of their funds -- and that's before we
consider some of the largest portions of their budgets.

Obviously the support by individuals, businesses, and foundations does
not constitute taxpayer funding, right? Not so fast. These donations
are tax-deductible; thus, they are subsidized by the government.
Granted, not every gift is actually reflected on an individual or
business tax return, and not all of those that are itemized wind up
offsetting Â*high marginal tax rates. Still, it is reasonable to
believe that on average, these gifts result in deductions at the 25%
tax bracket. Since these three categories add up to roughly 64% of
station funds, we can reasonably argue that 16% of that money (64% x
0.25) is subsidized by the tax code.

In the end, then, local NPR affiliates derive something like 41% of
their funding from taxes, either directly or indirectly.

What about the entity that generated all the buzz for firing Juan
Williams? Interestingly, despite their conflicting 2% and 3% claims,
the NPR website says, "We receive no direct federal funding for
operations." Of course, that sort of statement leaves open the
possibility of receiving direct federal funding for other purposes.
What are those? They don't volunteer that information easily. What
they do point out prominently is that the biggest source of money is
from member stations. Local stations pay dues and fees for the
programs they rebroadcast. This money, recorded as Station Programming
Fees (40%), Membership Dues (1%), and Distribution Services (8%),
accounts for nearly half of NPR's funds.

Why is this significant? You do recall that some 41% of local station
money came from taxpayers, right? If 50% of funding comes from money
that is 40% derived from taxes, then another 20% of NPR's budget
comes, indirectly, from taxpayers. Twenty percent! That's a long way
from the 2%-3% figures, isn't it?

The next huge chunk of NPR income comes from "Sponsorships." These are
the things that, in any other media outlet, would be called
advertisements. We could argue that sponsorship money is tax-
deductible and therefore partly taxpayer-funded, but, lest we look
like double-standard-wielding lefties, we would have to make the same
argument for the ads that car companies run on ABC and CBS. Let's face
it: virtually every large corporation in America enjoys some form of
government largesse. That's what happens when government tentacles
reach into all portions of our lives.

On the other hand, there is much more clarity when we look to the 10%
"Grants and Contributions" category that represents direct taxpayer
gifting (most prominently by way of the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting) and indirect taxpayer support by way of tax deductions.
Is it reasonable to say that half of that 10% comes in one way or
another from taxes? I think so, but I'll settle for saying that this
category adds just 3% to the total. This brings our total of taxpayer
support for the entire NPR budget to around 23%.

Given that only 89% of the NPR income pie comes from external sources
(the rest coming from investment returns), it is not unreasonable to
assert that more than 25% of NPR funds from outside sources actually
comes from taxpayers. That's not an overwhelming portion of the
budget, but it's a long way from two to three percent.

As annoying as I find the bias at MSNBC or the New York Times, I will
respect to the end their right to be as biased as they'd like. What
they do with their money and whatever funds they can convince
advertisers to kick in is their own business. The same does not apply
to the likes of NPR. That's your money and my money going into their
coffers and funding that unbalanced message. We need to demand that
NPR either be pushed away from the public trough or be required to
present a modicum of evenhandedness.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...s_funding.html

See also:

George Soros’ Millions Buying ‘Political Reporters’ for NPR

http://bigjournalism.com/wthuston/20...p/George_Soros

Will Republicans Fight to Defund 'Public Broadcasting'?http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/..._fight_to_defu...

Comparing Jews to Nazis Meets NPR's 'Editorial Standards and
Practices'http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/comparing_jews_to_nazis_meets....

NPRs Disgracehttp://frontpagemag.com/2010/10/22/nprs-disgrace/

Cite one instance, one report in which NPR has not been utterly fair
and given full voice to Conservative, Liberal, Republican and
Democrat. The problem with you Rightards is, and always has been, if a
news show isn't a propaganda front for wingnuts, to you its the enemy.
You don't believe in fair, balanced, or accurate reporting, all of
which NPR provides.

On Dec 25, 11:29Â*am, ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung wrote:
On Dec 24, 4:15Â*pm, Ron wrote:
On Dec 24, 3:38Â*pm, N∅ ∅baMa∅
wrote:http://page.townhall.com/DefundNPR/

.
.
This is an old Mantra. Â*Get up to date on NPR funding. Â*Go to:

http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/pu...ofinances.html

Where we read the following, with my added CAPS:

"NPR's revenue comes primarily from fees paid by our member stations,
contributions from corporate sponsors, institutional foundation
grants, gifts from major donors, and fees paid by users of The Public
Radio Satellite System. Â*WE RECEIVE NO DIRECT FEDERAL FUNDING FOR
OPERATIONS. Â*The largest share of NPR's revenue comes from program
fees and station dues paid by member stations that broadcast NPR
programs."

Your post illustrates so much of what is wrong with Wingers. Â*They
rant and rave over subjects about which they know nothing. Â*Zilch.

RO

NPR Derives 41% of Funding From YOUR Taxes

How Public Is NPR's Funding? Options
By Mark Browning

De-fund NPR! In the wake of the firing of Juan Williams by National
Public Radio, we've once again heard conservative voices issue that
call. NPR representatives respond, as they always do when their
dependence on government purse strings is noted, by arguing that only
two or three percent of the service's money comes from the federal
government. NPR apologist Norah O'Donnell recently threw out a one to
three-percent figure on MSNBC.

Norah's New Math Grossly Understates NPR's Fed Fundinghttp://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2010/10/22/norahs-n...

We don't see these people volunteering to give up that three percent,
but we have to admit that this amount of funding is not the gigantic
boondoggle we might prefer to oppose. Is this three-percent number a
fair claim by the NPR crowd? Apparently, in a very limited sense, it
is, but in a more comprehensive analysis, it is nowhere near
accurate.

To understand NPR funding, we have to recognize that public radio is a
two-tier operation. There is, on the one hand, the network itself, the
Washington-based producer of programs that actually terminated Juan
Williams' contract. On the other hand, there is the collection of some
nine hundred NPR affiliate radio stations who bring this programming
to radios around the United States. We cannot hope to understand NPR's
finances without understanding the stations as well, so let's begin
there.

- According to information available from the NPR
- website [Oct 2010],
- http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/pu...ofinances.html
- local radio station money comes from the following sources:

Actually Each and Every US Tax Payer Pays For
All of CPB & PBS & NPR Costs
: : : -and-here-is-how- : : :

On Dec 25, 12:31Â*pm, Tim Crowley wrote:
On Dec 24, 2:15Â*pm, Ron wrote:





On Dec 24, 3:38Â*pm, N∅ ∅baMa∅
wrote:http://page.townhall.com/DefundNPR/

.
.
This is an old Mantra. Â*Get up to date on NPR funding. Â*Go to:

http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/pu...ofinances.html

Where we read the following, with my added CAPS:

"NPR's revenue comes primarily from fees paid by our member stations,
contributions from corporate sponsors, institutional foundation
grants, gifts from major donors, and fees paid by users of The Public
Radio Satellite System. Â*WE RECEIVE NO DIRECT FEDERAL FUNDING FOR
OPERATIONS. Â*The largest share of NPR's revenue comes from program
fees and station dues paid by member stations that broadcast NPR
programs."

Your post illustrates so much of what is wrong with Wingers. Â*They
rant and rave over subjects about which they know nothing. Â*Zilch.

RO

Oh now you went and confused the idiot with facts.


Speaking about facts and idiots, Timmy farts again.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...s_funding.html
more than 25% of NPR funds from outside sources actually comes from
taxpayers. That's not an overwhelming portion of the budget, but it's
a long way from two to three percent.

On Dec 25, 4:29Â*pm, dave wrote:
On 12/25/2010 11:29 AM, ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung wrote:

in addition to the services of our military and State Department. We are
being bled dry by foreign predator corporations and you're worried about
a few million dollars for Click and Clack and Will Shorts?

You are a tool of the Koch brothers and the USA Chamber of Commerce
(which despite its name specializes in lobbying foreign companies). They
can't allow a credible news source to interfere with their high-dollae
anarchy.


Both the military and State Department are enumerated powers. Not so
with funding NPR.

If we cut all unconstitutional spending we would have a very much
smaller budget.

On Dec 26, 12:41Â*am, WR wrote:
On Dec 25, 2:29Â*pm, ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung wrote:





On Dec 24, 4:15Â*pm, Ron wrote:

On Dec 24, 3:38Â*pm, N∅ ∅baMa∅
wrote:http://page.townhall.com/DefundNPR/

.
.
This is an old Mantra. Â*Get up to date on NPR funding. Â*Go to:

http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/pu...ofinances.html

Where we read the following, with my added CAPS:

"NPR's revenue comes primarily from fees paid by our member stations,
contributions from corporate sponsors, institutional foundation
grants, gifts from major donors, and fees paid by users of The Public
Radio Satellite System. Â*WE RECEIVE NO DIRECT FEDERAL FUNDING FOR
OPERATIONS. Â*The largest share of NPR's revenue comes from program
fees and station dues paid by member stations that broadcast NPR
programs."

Your post illustrates so much of what is wrong with Wingers. Â*They
rant and rave over subjects about which they know nothing. Â*Zilch.

RO

NPR Derives 41% of Funding From YOUR Taxes

How Public Is NPR's Funding? Options
By Mark Browning

De-fund NPR! In the wake of the firing of Juan Williams by National
Public Radio, we've once again heard conservative voices issue that
call. NPR representatives respond, as they always do when their
dependence on government purse strings is noted, by arguing that only
two or three percent of the service's money comes from the federal
government. NPR apologist Norah O'Donnell recently threw out a one to
three-percent figure on MSNBC.

Norah's New Math Grossly Understates NPR's Fed Fundinghttp://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2010/10/22/norahs-n...

We don't see these people volunteering to give up that three percent,
but we have to admit that this amount of funding is not the gigantic
boondoggle we might prefer to oppose. Is this three-percent number a
fair claim by the NPR crowd? Apparently, in a very limited sense, it
is, but in a more comprehensive analysis, it is nowhere near
accurate.

To understand NPR funding, we have to recognize that public radio is a
two-tier operation. There is, on the one hand, the network itself, the
Washington-based producer of programs that actually terminated Juan
Williams' contract. On the other hand, there is the collection of some
nine hundred NPR affiliate radio stations who bring this programming
to radios around the United States. We cannot hope to understand NPR's
finances without understanding the stations as well, so let's begin
there.

According to information available from the NPR website [Oct 2010],http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/pu...ofinances.html
local radio station money comes from the following sources:

32.1% Â*Individual contributions

21.1% Â*Business contributions

13.6% Â*University funds

10.1% Â*Corporation for Public Broadcasting funds

9.6% Â* Â*Foundation money

5.6% Â* Â*Federal, state, and local government funds

7.6% Â* Â*Other

At first glance, this distribution of funds seems to confirm that
public radio's support does not come in large amounts from the direct
allocation of tax moneys. After all, 5.6% is not a gigantic portion of
the budget, is it? But let's look more closely. That 10.1% that comes
from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is 99% provided by -- you
guessed it -- the federal government. Those university funds, whenever
they are provided by a public university, represent taxpayer-provided
dollars. We can safely assert that three out of four university-
supported stations are publicly funded, which means that more than 10%
(three-quarters of that 13.6%) is taken from the taxpayer's pockets.

So far, we find that NPR member stations count on direct or indirect
taxpayer money for some 25% of their funds -- and that's before we
consider some of the largest portions of their budgets.

Obviously the support by individuals, businesses, and foundations does
not constitute taxpayer funding, right? Not so fast. These donations
are tax-deductible; thus, they are subsidized by the government.
Granted, not every gift is actually reflected on an individual or
business tax return, and not all of those that are itemized wind up
offsetting Â*high marginal tax rates. Still, it is reasonable to
believe that on average, these gifts result in deductions at the 25%
tax bracket. Since these three categories add up to roughly 64% of
station funds, we can reasonably argue that 16% of that money (64% x
0.25) is subsidized by the tax code.

In the end, then, local NPR affiliates derive something like 41% of
their funding from taxes, either directly or indirectly.

What about the entity that generated all the buzz for firing Juan
Williams? Interestingly, despite their conflicting 2% and 3% claims,
the NPR website says, "We receive no direct federal funding for
operations." Of course, that sort of statement leaves open the
possibility of receiving direct federal funding for other purposes.
What are those? They don't volunteer that information easily. What
they do point out prominently is that the biggest source of money is
from member stations. Local stations pay dues and fees for the
programs they rebroadcast. This money, recorded as Station Programming
Fees (40%), Membership Dues (1%), and Distribution Services (8%),
accounts for nearly half of NPR's funds.

Why is this significant? You do recall that some 41% of local station
money came from taxpayers, right? If 50% of funding comes from money
that is 40% derived from taxes, then another 20% of NPR's budget
comes, indirectly, from taxpayers. Twenty percent! That's a long way
from the 2%-3% figures, isn't it?

The next huge chunk of NPR income comes from "Sponsorships." These are
the things that, in any other media outlet, would be called
advertisements. We could argue that sponsorship money is tax-
deductible and therefore partly taxpayer-funded, but, lest we look
like double-standard-wielding lefties, we would have to make the same
argument for the ads that car companies run on ABC and CBS. Let's face
it: virtually every large corporation in America enjoys some form of
government largesse. That's what happens when government tentacles
reach into all portions of our lives.

On the other hand, there is much more clarity when we look to the 10%
"Grants and Contributions" category that represents direct taxpayer
gifting (most prominently by way of the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting) and indirect taxpayer support by way of tax deductions.
Is it reasonable to say that half of that 10% comes in one way or
another from taxes? I think so, but I'll settle for saying that this
category adds just 3% to the total. This brings our total of taxpayer
support for the entire NPR budget to around 23%.

Given that only 89% of the NPR income pie comes from external sources
(the rest coming from investment returns), it is not unreasonable to
assert that more than 25% of NPR funds from outside sources actually
comes from taxpayers. That's not an overwhelming portion of the
budget, but it's a long way from two to three percent.

As annoying as I find the bias at MSNBC or the New York Times, I will
respect to the end their right to be as biased as they'd like. What
they do with their money and whatever funds they can convince
advertisers to kick in is their own business. The same does not apply
to the likes of NPR. That's your money and my money going into their
coffers and funding that unbalanced message. We need to demand that
NPR either be pushed away from the public trough or be required to
present a modicum of evenhandedness.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...s_funding.html

See also:

George Soros’ Millions Buying ‘Political Reporters’ for NPR

http://bigjournalism.com/wthuston/20...os-millions-bu...

Will Republicans Fight to Defund 'Public Broadcasting'?http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/..._fight_to_defu...

Comparing Jews to Nazis Meets NPR's 'Editorial Standards and
Practices'http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/comparing_jews_to_nazis_meets....

NPRs Disgracehttp://frontpagemag.com/2010/10/22/nprs-disgrace/

Cite one instance, one report in Â*which NPR has not been utterly fair
and given full voice to Conservative, Liberal, Republican and
Democrat. The problem with you Rightards is, and always has been, if a
news show isn't a propaganda front for wingnuts, to you its the enemy.
You don't believe in fair, balanced, or accurate reporting, all of
which NPR provides.


Fair is in the eye of the beholder. Those beholding NPR should pay for
it. Those who don't behold should not have to pay.

On Dec 25, 11:28Â*am, Tim Crowley wrote:
On Dec 24, 1:38Â*pm, N∅ ∅baMa∅
wrote:

http://page.townhall.com/DefundNPR/

Buahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

hint: k000k a d000dle D0


You have a very limited response repertoire.

On Dec 25, 8:05*pm, "(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) http://
www.LayoffRemedy.com" wrote:
On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 13:38:11 -0800 (PST),

N? ?baMa? wrote:
* * * Petition to Defund National Propaganda Radio - NPR

* * *There's further validation of the term, "RIGHTARD."

* * And: *NPR = National PUBLIC Radio, dimwit. *One of the
FINEST and most educational channels on all of television.

* * (So it's no wonder YOU don't appreciate it.)
...


But it should not be funded by tax money. That, you see, is the issue.
Also, duncewhit, there is no PUBLIC.
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/Myth.shtml

On Dec 25, 10:07Â*pm, Werner wrote:
On Dec 25, 4:29Â*pm, dave wrote:

On 12/25/2010 11:29 AM, ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung wrote:

in addition to the services of our military and State Department. We are
being bled dry by foreign predator corporations and you're worried about
a few million dollars for Click and Clack and Will Shorts?

You are a tool of the Koch brothers and the USA Chamber of Commerce
(which despite its name specializes in lobbying foreign companies). They
can't allow a credible news source to interfere with their high-dollae
anarchy.

- Both the military and State Department are enumerated
- powers. Not so with funding NPR.
-
- If we cut all unconstitutional spending we would have a very much
- smaller budget.

Please do not talk 'Rational {Pure} Un-Adulterated Facts
to our 'Special-Dave' who espouses his own reality of :
"Facts Have A Liberal Bias"*
* Tortured To Mean What You Want Them To Mean.
* Distorted To Prove hat You Want Them To Prove.
* Twisted From Truth To Lie.

-cause-to- 'Special-Dave' It Is Good That
NPR Has A 'Selective' Fact Based 'Liberal Bias'.

The Big Liberal-Lie and Democrat-Distortion
Tax Payers and Tax Money Does NOT Fund
and Support CPB & PBS & NPR
-cause- It Really Does Both Directly and Indirectly [.]

On Dec 25, 10:14*pm, Werner wrote:
On Dec 25, 8:05*pm, "(¯`·.¸ * Craig *Chilton *¸.·´¯) http://

www.LayoffRemedy.com" wrote:
On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 13:38:11 -0800 (PST),

N? ?baMa? wrote:
* * * Petition to Defund National Propaganda Radio - NPR

* * *There's further validation of the term, "RIGHTARD."

* * And: *NPR = National PUBLIC Radio, dimwit. *One of the
FINEST and most educational channels on all of television.

* * (So it's no wonder YOU don't appreciate it.)
...

- But it should not be funded by tax money.
- That, you see, is the issue.
- Also, duncewhit, there is no PUBLIC.
- *http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/Myth.shtml

All the so-called Public Broadcasters and their
'local' Stations are Controlled by the Liberal-Elite
{Over-Lords} Using Tax Payer Money To Force
The Progressive Agenda On The Public [.]
* A Board Composted of the Liberal-Elite
-not- Elected By The Common Hardworking American
US Citizens 'The Public' of the Local Community.
* Managed by the Agents of Liberal-Elite
-not- With No-Say From The Common Hardworking
American US Citizens 'The Public'
* Funded by The Taxes of the Common Hardworking
American US Citizens 'The Public'
-but- They Get No-Say
-cause- The Liberal-Elite Control All.