Sustaining member of KPCC in Los Angeles.
Proud donor to Wisconsin Public Radio. Wish I could spare more.
Same here. I also donated my late father in law’s car to them last year, and I plan to donate my old car as well (as soon as I can get my hands on the title, which is in a very safe but inaccessible place right now - in a file cabinet in a closet with three-deep boxes of books in front of it, grrr).
I donate every time I pay my taxes and I’d like it to stop.
Of all the federal tax expenditures to get worked up about, I’m surprised (and a bit amused) at the level of resentment that NPR gets. I wonder if the Koch brothers feel this way when I complain about oil company subsidies?
Anyway, proud sustaining member of WPLN, Nashville.
I stopped supporting NPR years ago because I got tired of their false equivalence for pseudo-balance bullshit. I think that “Nice Polite Republicans” is a bit of an overstatement, but only just.
Sustaining member of WLRN, Miami/South Florida.
Yes I do. I have listened to talk radio while working since the early 1980s.
When I listen to NPR, I am not subjected to three minutes of repetitive ads and station identifiers for every three minutes, like I was on Clear Channel and the like. Only half of what I was listening to was actual content.
Incessant advertising on commercial radio drove me to NPR. And yes, I donate.
You trust his math skills because you agree with him, not because he’s a tax accountant. And you seem to concede that Bloomberg may have paid thousands of dollars, so it’s not inconceivable.
Shhh, you’re being bizarre and insanely idiotic. People on here have to subsidize farmers in Iowa, so it’s okay that you’re forcibly made to pay money to a radio station you don’t listen to and disagree with.
To Skammer and the legions of other people who’ve made equivalent statements, would you be so kind as to go on record answering the following question?
Do you really, honestly think there is nothing wrong with the government taking money by force from somebody to pay for a radio station they dislike and don’t listen to simply because you don’t agree 100% with the federal budget?
You first.
Do you really, honestly think there is nothing wrong with the government taking money by force from somebody to pay for a (insert any federal program you don’t like) they dislike and don’t support to simply because you don’t agree 100% with the federal budget?
No I don’t. Your turn.
Why the hesitancy to answer?
I’m not the one who is all over this thread seemingly not grasping the fact that the federal government budget is going towards thousands and thousands of projects/programs, and YOU, as a taxpayer, don’t get a line item veto. You resent your money going to NPR, I resent mine going to oil subsidies. Get over it.
BTW, let’s get the thread back on track. I’m a sustaining member of the Atlanta NPR station, WABE
Oh I trust Henry Paulson’s numeracy as well. I properly characterized the idea that Waymore pays thousands of dollars to NPR via federal taxes as bizarre and wishful whining. Given that he would have to pay more than $160,000,000 in federal taxes for that to occur, I think my concerns were appropriate. No offense but unsurprisingly uber-rich finance guys tend to have a better grasp of tax math.
We don’t have to quote your initial claim (post 13) that I was responding to again, right?
Answer the question. Is the fact you dislike parts of the budget a justifiable reason anybody should be forced to give money to a radio station they don’t support and don’t listen to?
As to the bolded text in the quote above, is this really the liberal mindset? That it’s fine to forcibly extract money from somebody for a RADIO STATION so long as one other person somewhere doesn’t 100% agree with the federal budget?
I never said I paid thousands of dollars to NPR.
Can you please link to the report by Paulson where he said nobody ever in the history of American tax collection paid $2,000 or more towards NPR?
Also, I invite you to answer the question.
Wow, you are really being obtuse here. I am a tax paying US citizen, And I am aware that some of my tax money is going to programs I don’t support. I accept that fact as a part of our US representative form of government, and how budgets are allocated.
By “FORCIBLY EXTRACT” I assume you mean those evil things called taxes, right.
See post 72 above, which is yours. In it you say “you first” in response to my request for answers to the question. I answered your question. Courtesy seems to dictate you do the same, especially since I posed my question first and all.
And I’d like to ask a new question, since you’ve honed in on it. Do you think taxes are not “forcibly extracted”?
I think that it’s fair to say that taxes are forcibly extracted in that we don’t have a choice.
I can’t answer your question any other way than this: our system of taxation, indeed pretty much every system of taxation, involves people having to pay at least part of their taxes towards things that they would prefer not to pay. In your case one of those things is radio station programming that airs on hundreds of radio stations (not “a radio station”). For others it’s other things. You’re not paying for radio programming because I am paying for something else. We are all paying for the whole shebang because that is the system.