Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Taxpayers do not fund PBS

Posted By: PUBLIC broadcast system on 2009-02-06
In Reply to: Why should taxpayers be funding - sm

You obviously do not watch PBS. It is solely viewer funded and publicly owned. (Although lately I HAVE seen paid commercials on there)

I'm beginning to see the reason some of the posters here sound so ignorant.

Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Other related messages found in our database

Why should taxpayers be funding
any network?  Just for the record.....it is O'Reilly. 
Obama robbing taxpayers? Do you

bwitch and moan when we give OPEC 700B a year for oil?  With this stimulus, an energy policy will be started to relieve us of that huge bill EVERY YEAR!!  Not to mention national security.  Just that one fact alone makes it worth the money, IMHO.  Also, you would pay taxes anyway, no matter what!!  Did you mind paying your taxes so the FAT CATS could get fatter over the last 8 years?  Do you bwitch and moan about that?  Give me a break.

Keating 5 cost taxpayers $125 billion.
x
Taxpayers will pay for Gonzales' private attorney
This is incredible.

Lawyers from the Justice Department's civil division often represent department employees who're sued in connection with their official actions. However, Gonzales' attorney recently revealed in court papers that the Justice Department had approved his request to pay private attorney's fees arising from the federal lawsuit.

Dan Metcalfe, a former high-ranking veteran Justice Department official who filed the suit on behalf of eight law students, called the department's decision to pay for a private attorney rather than rely on its civil division "exceptional."

"It undoubtedly will cost the taxpayers far more," he said.

According to a person with knowledge of the case, the Justice Department has imposed a limit of $200 an hour or $24,000 a month on attorneys' fees. Top Justice Department attorneys generally earn no more than $100 per hour. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.

Asked why Gonzales made the request, Gonzales spokesman Robert Bork Jr. said that his client "values the work that the department's civil attorneys do in all cases" but thinks that "private counsel can often be useful where (department) officials are sued in an individual capacity, even where the suit has no substantive merit."

Charles Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said the department wouldn't have any comment on the reasons for the approval and wouldn't answer questions about the cost to taxpayers.
Geithner plan will rob American taxpayers
Geithner plan will rob American taxpayers: Stiglitz
Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:12am EDT

By Susan Fenton and Deborah Kan

HONG KONG (Reuters) - The U.S. government plan to rid banks of toxic assets will rob American taxpayers by exposing them to too much risk and is unlikely to work as long as the economy remains weak, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said on Tuesday.

"The Geithner plan is very badly flawed," Stiglitz told Reuters in an interview during a Credit Suisse Asian Investment Conference in Hong Kong.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's plan to wipe up to US$1 trillion in bad debt off banks' balance sheets, unveiled on Monday, offered "perverse incentives," Stiglitz said.

The U.S. government is basically using the taxpayer to guarantee against downside risk on the value of these assets, while giving the upside, or potential profits, to private investors, he said.

"Quite frankly, this amounts to robbery of the American people. I don't think it's going to work because I think there'll be a lot of anger about putting the losses so much on the shoulder of the American taxpayer."

Even if the plan clears banks of massive toxic debt, worries about the economic outlook mean banks could still be unwilling to make fresh loans, while the prospect of a higher tax burden to pay for various government stimulus plans could further undermine U.S. consumers, he said.

Some Republican lawmakers have also expressed concern over the incentives offered by the government, which could end up providing private investors with more than 90 percent of the funds to buy the troubled assets. But President Barack Obama has said the plan was critical to a U.S. economic recovery,

Stiglitz, a professor at New York's Columbia University and a former World Bank chief economist, also urged G20 leaders at their London summit next month to commit to providing greater resources to developing countries and said China should be given bigger voting rights in the International Monetary Fund.

"The voices of developing countries, and countries like China that will provide a lot of the money, are not heard."

China would be hard pushed to reach its targeted 8 percent economic growth this year, but the important thing was that at least the Chinese economy was still growing, he said.

Stiglitz welcomed China's proposal on Monday for an overhaul of the world monetary system in which Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of the People's Bank of China, said the IMF's Special Drawing Right has the potential to become a super-sovereign reserve currency.

Stiglitz has long called for the U.S. dollar to be replaced as the only reserve currency. Basing a reserve system on a single currency whose strength depends on confidence its own economy is not a good basis for a global system, he says.

"We may be at the beginning of a loss of confidence (in the U.S. dollar reserve system)," he said. "I think there is support for some sort of global reserve system."
Bush and the Playboy Playmate - Why are taxpayers paying for this?

Bush team backs Anna in fight over fortune
By Inside Track
Tuesday, December 27, 2005

An unlikely fellow Texan has teamed up with Playboy playmate Anna Nicole Smith in her U.S. Supreme Court fight to claim her late husband’s fortune: George Bush!





    The Bush administration’s top lawyer, U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, filed arguments on Smith’s behalf and wants to take part when the case is argued before the justices.




    The high court will decide early next year whether to let Clement share time with Smith’s attorney during the one-hour argument on Feb. 28.




    Smith, 38, has been desperately trying to collect millions of dollars from the estate of oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall II, whom she married in 1994 when he was 89 and she was a 26-year-old topless dancer in Houston. Marshall died in 1995 and Smith has been in a legal battle with his only son, E. Pierce Marshall, over his fortune ever since.




    In previous rulings, federal bankruptcy judge sided with the Trim Spa spokesgal in her claim on the estate, awarding her $474 million, which was subsequently reduced to about $89 million by a federal district judge, and then tossed out altogether by a federal appeals court.




    The current issue is the question of when federal courts may hear claims that involve state probate proceedings. Clement contends the justices should protect jurisdiction in disputes.




    The zany reality TV star lost in Texas state courts, which found that Marshall’s son was the sole heir to his father’s estate.




    Although both Bush and Marshall graduated from Yale University, were both in the oil business and held government positions in Washington, the Bush administration’s filings in the case are strictly technical.





    Yeeeeeeee-haaaaaaa!



http://thetrack.bostonherald.com/moreTrack/view.bg?articleid=118756

Good grief! Taxpayers get stuck with the bill...

and Franklin Raines gets a over a million per year in "retirement..."


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/28/national/main663502.shtml


 

So now we taxpayers are expected to pay for a motorsports racing track facility and a mine rescue tr
What the ... ?

A tax exemption for wooden arrows made for use by children?

And economic development for American Samoa?

An increase in the rum excise tax for Puerto Rico?

Do these senators think we CAN'T read? Or just hoping that we WON'T?
Iraq war fund

Iraq War Funding Imminent, Timeline Absent







"  James Joyner | Thursday, December 13, 2007

After months of ranting and raving, congressional Democrats have backed down and approved funding for the war in Iraq without a troop withdrawal provision.



2nd Democratic lawmakers and staffers privately say they’re closing in on a broad budget deal that would give President Bush as much as $70 billion in new war funding.


The deal would lack a key provision Democrats had attached to previous funding bills calling for most U.S. troops to come home from Iraq by the end of 2008, which would be a significant legislative victory for Bush.


Democrats admit such a move would be highly controversial within their own party. Coming just weeks after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, vowed the White House would not get another dollar in war money this year, it would further antagonize the liberal base of the party, which has become frustrated with the congressional leadership’s failure to push back on Bush’s Iraq policy.


“The base will not be happy,” said one senior Democratic aide, who requested anonymity to candidly discuss budget negotiations that have not been completed.


The Democratic aide acknowledged the president is likely to get new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan before Congress adjourns for the year. “Yes, in the end, that’s where we will be,” the aide said.


The bizarre thing is that everybody knew that months ago. Of course the president was going to “win” on this issue. No Congress is going to pull funds from an army currently in harm’s way. That Pelosi and company allowed this to be framed as a partisan issue was amazingly incompetent.



 
Why not? Pacifists have to fund
Get a grip.
If the cigarette tax would completely fund...
the 6 billion in revenue expanding this program is going to cost,that would be one thing. It won't. You say you wouldn't mind "having your taxes raised a little." Isn't 35-40% off the top of your gross now enough? I think it is. I think they need to proritize the spending, that is all I am saying. It seems the consensus here is that health insurance for children is the most important. Then that program should be funded first. Then decide what is the next most important issue, and fund that, and on down the line. We cannot keep adding programs, adding taxes, adding programs, adding taxes. At some point it has to stop, or those paying the taxes are going to need help from a program to eat while they are working for taxes for programs. And as more and more people opt for programs and not working and paying into the system...the situation will only get worse. You do realize that realistically this cannot continue forever....right?
401K/retirement fund

You can't "take" your pension and 401K out of the stock market if you are not retirement age.  We are stuck with whatever the companies we work for invest in. my husband and I have some choices about where we invest our 401K but they all involve mutual funds, stocks, bonds, etc.


 

Borrowing from the fund is not the only problem --
I don't want to start an argument, but part of the problem is people like my grandmother (God bless her). She drew social security benefits off my grandfather for at over 20 years. She had never paid a penny into social security. Before that, he had drawn for at least 15 years. I know that he only paid in for very few years before he started drawing. So, just the two of them drew out many more thousands of dollars than they paid in.

Now think of all the people who never paid in and are drawing and the people who paid in very little and are drawing. Then think of how many more people are drawing than are paying in right now.

The funds are just not there for people to draw all their lives. I mean get real, when it was set up, people did not live as long, they did not pay in very much at all (in fact, my grandfather regularly paid in 10 cents a week before retirement), it just does not balance out. Now with the baby boomers getting ready to draw, we are really in trouble because the days of having 6-10 kids that would be contributing are over. Most of us only have 2 or less... Do you think we will ever get back the money we have contributed? No way!!!

That's why even though I feel bad for people having to go without a raise for a couple of years, I am not going to really get too upset because at least they are benefitting somewhat - My money is just lost!

Some things to think about....
RNC fund-raising letter

Michael Steele, Chairman


Republican National Committee


310 First Street, Southeast


Washington, DC 20003


 


Mr. Steele,


 


In response to your urgent ''roll call'' of Americans... (and solicitation of a donation) I can assure you that I certainly am fed up with the Obama administration and congressional Democrats.  But I must inform you that I am equally fed up with the Republican party as well.  What’s more, I feel great sense of betrayal because I expect Democrats to act exactly as they have, but not Republicans.


 


TARP and other bailouts were not a good idea just because they were begun by Bush.  The further bailouts, stimulus, deficit increase, nationalization of American business, universal healthcare and other travesties against capitalism are not bad ideas simply because Obama owns them.  These are wrong, no matter who is in charge.  Bush threw the ball, Obama knocked it over the fence.  Way to go.


 


Only in Washington, DC does it make sense to say, ''I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system.''   What makes our free market possible is the freedom of  losers to fail and winners to succeed.  No one and nothing is too big to fail. It’s how we weed out bad ideas.  You might remember this next time you are tempted to run a RINO for president.


 


The Republican party allowed Obama to be elected by fielding such a poor presidential candidate.  McCain:  Heck of a guy, admirable character, but not a true Republican.  By the time I voted in my state Ohio primary, any other appealing Republican candidate had dropped out.  In November I was forced simply to vote the NObama ticket.  I did not want a candidate who would ''reach across the aisle.''  I wanted a conservative Republican candidate.  Had it not been for Sarah Palin, I might as well have stayed home. 


 


I will not be attending the Republican ''listening tour.''  Listen to this:  The dismantling of the American way of life is on Republican as well as Democrat heads.  I now consider myself an Independent.  In 2012, if the Republican party manages to run a strong conservative candidate I will vote for that candidate. If the party persists in ''moving to the center'' and watering down its traditionally conservative principles, it will find itself in this identical situation.


 


Thanks for asking,  I feel much better now.

RNC fund-raising letter

Michael Steele, Chairman


Republican National Committee


310 First Street, Southeast


Washington, DC 20003


 


Mr. Steele,


 


In response to your urgent ''roll call'' of Americans... (and solicitation of a donation) I can assure you that I certainly am fed up with the Obama administration and congressional Democrats.  But I must inform you that I am equally fed up with the Republican party as well.  What’s more, I feel great sense of betrayal because I expect Democrats to act exactly as they have, but not Republicans.


 


TARP and other bailouts were not a good idea just because they were begun by Bush.  The further bailouts, stimulus, deficit increase, nationalization of American business, universal healthcare and other travesties against capitalism are not bad ideas simply because Obama owns them.  These are wrong, no matter who is in charge.  Bush threw the ball, Obama knocked it over the fence.  Way to go.


 


Only in Washington, DC does it make sense to say, ''I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system.''   What makes our free market possible is the freedom of  losers to fail and winners to succeed.  No one and nothing is too big to fail. It’s how we weed out bad ideas.  You might remember this next time you are tempted to run a RINO for president.


 


The Republican party allowed Obama to be elected by fielding such a poor presidential candidate.  McCain:  Heck of a guy, admirable character, but not a true Republican.  By the time I voted in my state Ohio primary, any other appealing Republican candidate had dropped out.  In November I was forced simply to vote the NObama ticket.  I did not want a candidate who would ''reach across the aisle.''  I wanted a conservative Republican candidate.  Had it not been for Sarah Palin, I might as well have stayed home. 


 


I will not be attending the Republican ''listening tour.''  Listen to this:  The dismantling of the American way of life is on Republican as well as Democrat heads.  I now consider myself an Independent.  In 2012, if the Republican party manages to run a strong conservative candidate I will vote for that candidate. If the party persists in ''moving to the center'' and watering down its traditionally conservative principles, it will find itself in this identical situation.


 


Thanks for asking,  I feel much better now.

Err, you mean the link to Commonwealth Fund report
"It has to do with Medicaid." Yes, Medicaid is mentioned in the report, but ONLY within the context of expanded eligibility (by various states) based on INCOME, not on age. Furthermore, the feds are actually trying to limit, as in RESTRICT, this type of expanded Medicaid coverage.

It also talks about the interplay between Medicaid and private companies and how it is picking up some but not all of the fallout from private insurance eligibility restrictions. The report goes on to say that Medicaid is functioning AS IT WAS INTENDED, thus lending credence to the assertion in the OP that the SCHIPS program being administered like Medicare and Medicaid is a good thing.

Here's a suggestion. Do a find/search on Medicaid within the article and then try to identify any single statement that indicates Meicaid AGE guidelines have been revised upward. Certainly, you will find nothing anywhere to support the hogwash in the other post that suggests it is now or ever going to be 30.

Here's a few more clues for you. In the excerpt from the other post, terms and phrases such as "nothing to do with federal mandate, their parents' INSURANCE POLICIES and allow INSURERS to set their own dependent age limits" can in no way be interpreted as referring to state funded insurance programs.

Bottom line, once again, is that the aim of health care reform is to INSURE folks, not EXCLUDE them. Raising age (and other) restrictions by private insurance companies is one of many creative ways of keeping folks OFF of state and federally funded health insurance programs.
Why shouldnt gov fund religious programs?
I should be able to get some funding just like everyone else if I have a religious program.  I mean we fund abortion here in the US and abroad.  We fund wars, we fund all kinds of CRAP so why NOT religion?  Isnt it supposed to be equal and fair?  Why is it the religious people of this world, namely the Christians get the short end of the stick? 
I guess because they/we fund it maybe? Not a birthday gift. nm
X
The congress which raided the SS fund was republican at the time
and at the rate the republicans are carrying the country, in ten years, it will resemble Argentina (who also ended up in the same place, as a debtor nation).

Israel has the republican party as it stands in his back pocket as does corportate america. The republican party isn't conservative anymore. It is a giant siphon of American assets into the pockets of the rich, at the expense of the taxpayer. Anyone can see this but the sheople who voted these clowns into office and didn't benefit from the tax cuts ::rolls eyes::.
Obama also voted not to fund troops in combat....
It should be apparent to all of us by now that whatever you can find on one politician you can find on another... :)

http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/454ad652-5f6d-4cb1-808d-d52a8aa6f4ac.htm
the drug companies that fund the research for new drugs
really don't have all that much time to make money on the drugs before generics are allowed. Do you think generic companies are going to start contributing to research? For all those people who gripe about the drug companies, I would like to see the day come when the drug companies aren't willing to spend another dime on the research. The gov can pay for all the research then. They still pay for the meds, and it might be more, factoring in the waste for the gov being involved.
Well surely Obama doesn't fund all sources
a name please of a source you would consider credible.
And govt shouldn't fund religious programs....
schools, facilities, etc.
© Copyright 2001-09 MTStars.com All Rights Reserved