And now explain why this matters, taking into account the fact that all dollars are created by the U.S. government, so, if they wanted (I am not saying it is a good idea) they could pay off the debt tomorrow by simply issuing more money to themselves.
National debts or deficits are not analogous to private debts, and really ought not to be called by the same name. It is true that too much government debt, that increases over too long a period, is not a good thing for a country’s economy, but it is bad for reasons that are quite different from the reasons that private debt is bad. National governments, that control their own currency, cannot go broke or bankrupt, and too little government debt can be bad for the economy too.
I am not saying that the debt is not a problem, but it is not nearly such an urgent problem as some people (for political reasons) like to make out, and cutting back government spending (or even increasing taxation) may not be the most effective way to reduce it. Indeed, they might well even make the debt grow more quickly, by further depressing an already sluggish economy.
Also, ONE TRILLION DOLLARS, even when written in scary capitals, is really not very much money in relation to an economy the size of that of the United States.
cripes, this. this, and his threat to kill the national endowment for the arts are alone enough reason for me to not vote for Romney. it’s easy to say “cut it, it’s useless…” but ask Kurdistan about arts and humanities and culture. one of the first things they did upon american invasion was restart cultural projects. it was the first time in over a decade they weren’t simply trying to survive under the Ba’athist regime. they finally had a chance to get back to culture and it was one of the first things they did.
and often, cultural enrichments are not business-structured. business and humanities are rarely analogous. so PBS is great because it brings non-commercially viable but extremely culturally worth-while humanities projects to a national audience. the value is incalculable, especially if you are only measuring it in dollars and cents.
the NEA is 150 million bucks. is this really america’s problem?
Shit, I wish I made $75,000 a year. Granted, I get government-funded healthcare, housing, clothing allowance, education, and food allowance, so who knows, maybe it adds up. to somewhere up there.
There are only a handful of educational programs on commerical television. No network that was originally designed to be educational still is. If we use the free market, people will choose not to be educated.
The value of an educational program does not work on the same metric. If you release it to the free market, the market will dumb it down so it can get more money. Sure, not everyone may watch educational program, but those who do get a lot more value out of it as it is than everyone would altogether if the free market had its way.
It’s another example of how money and value are not equivalent.
I’ve got an idea. Increase the government payroll.
Specially, hire a huge number of new IRS agents. We know that nine figures of owed taxes are not collected in any year and that each new IRS agent on average brings in far more than his or her salary by going after unpaid taxes.
So double the size of the IRS. That would cut a huge hole in unemployment, as many jobs as are created the rest of the U.S. combined for a month, and actually make money for the government, cutting the deficit more than Mangosteen’s proposal. The winniest win-win of winningsville.
So how does funding PBS solve this problem? Are you suggesting that the idiot public who would not receive program X on a commercial channel because advertisers deem it to be so poor that nobody would watch it, would nonetheless watch it on the government channel? Even when they can hit the remote and watch shows about aliens on other channels?
Yep. Another type of programming might bring even more viewers, but since PBS isn’t beholden to advertisers they don’t have to worry about that, and can continue broadcasting programs that some people watch and enjoy, even if they could get a larger audience by targeting the lowest common denominator.
I’m starting to think that broadcast television is an obsolete medium anyways. The way towards the future for some of these shows might just end up being internet shows. Starting to see more than a few of those as it is, shows that would never happen on traditional TV, but which just work on the internet.
Hell, I just helped finance two video games, a museum, a broadway musical, and two graphic novels on Kickstarter and Indiegogo in the last few months, so the path to the donors is still there even if the TV station isn’t.
Could you or anyone give me one program as an example? Give me one show that the History Channel, A&E, TLC, Discovery, or the Science Channel wouldn’t pick up because nobody would watch it, yet it is still worthwhile to be broadcast through deficit funding by the federal government.
Your premise is flawed. The premise isn’t that “nobody” would watch it. The premise is that they could make more money by broadcasting, say, twelve straight hours of Pawn Stars.
My example is Masterpiece Theatre, since you asked for an example, though.
Sure. 25% of poor people wouldn’t get their food stamps, 25% of the weather forecasts wouldn’t happen, 25% of the elderly just wouldn’t get their SS checks, 25% of bridges needing federal funds to repair would just collapse, etc.
Following your kind of thinking that “we owe the money to ourselves, so debt doesn’t matter”, why don’t you suggest that the Federal government print up $100,000 for every man, woman and child in the country and give it to them, tax free. We’d all be rich and live happily ever after.
No, everyone gets their food stamps, just 25% less. Churches and local food banks would help out. Weather forecasts??? Are you kidding? How many PRIVATE forecasting companies are making these that are just as accurate as the Federal government’s? Shut the whole Fed weather service down 100%! Social Security is a program that people paid into and is not paid for from the General Fund and would not be cut. Highway funds could be easily cut by 25%. Ever see how many guys are just standing around at the Federal Highway construction sites?
There is no more money to spend or even borrow. “Paying” for things by printing fiat paper dollar bills backed by thin air will end badly for the USA. Its been tried before in many other countries throughout history.
Granted, I get government-funded healthcare, housing, clothing allowance, education, and food allowance, so who knows, maybe it adds up. to somewhere up there.