- This topic has 545 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 8 months ago by
afx114.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 16, 2011 at 10:54 PM #678895March 16, 2011 at 10:55 PM #677765
temeculaguy
ParticipantForgive me if this was already mentioned, the thread went sideways in it’s usual way towards the end of page 1, so I skipped it, I’ve heard enough of the who’s fault it is/pension fights and wanted to comment on NPR.
Like others, I like parts of it. I could be called “left leaning” at times, but that’s not why I like NPR. In certain groups I might be called “right leaning,” and that is also not why I agree that all public funding should stop for NPR. This may sound odd, but I like NPR and PBS and I also want all their public money taken away.
NPR has outlived it’s purpose. With the advent of the internet, 1000 channels, satellite radio, PPV, mobile devices, and about a dozen things yet to be invented, the public doesn’t need uncensored information. This very blog, and the thousands like it serve that purpose at no expense to the taxpayers. You Tube, Facebook, myspace, all are examples of how people have a vehicle to spread ideas, learn, connect and even become famous. When America had less than ten television channels, one or two newspapers per town and a handful of talk radio channels, NPR filled the void. There is no more void. Strip the politics out of it, forget about what team you are on, there isn’t anything NPR does that can’t be done without taxpayer money.
My favorite part of NPR/PBS was it used to be the only place to see certain concerts, especially those in another language (I blame PBS for the fact that I secretly listen to Pavarotti, Domingo, Bocelli and the like. Outside of PBS, I’d never see some of that stuff 20 years ago, but that no longer holds true. I’m sure everyone else has something they dig. But the ability to broadcast from one’s bedroom or share files has made it so simple to find anything I want, when i want. If enough people want their programming and don’t want commercials or ad driven programs, they can pay for it. I pay for XM/Sirius, I pay for HBO/Showtime/Cinemax, I pay for various sports. I do not expect tax payers to pay for me to watch Dexter without commercials, that’s my responsibility and my choice. NPR and PBS have not only outlived their usefulness, they actually contradict the principles they were based on, which was to give people an alternative, a choice, something that wasn’t influenced by money or politics.
The good stuff will get picked up by other cable channels, the radio shows people want will find their way to XM and the internet. The public can no longer be deprived of anything, that horse left the barn years ago.
March 16, 2011 at 10:55 PM #677820ParticipantForgive me if this was already mentioned, the thread went sideways in it’s usual way towards the end of page 1, so I skipped it, I’ve heard enough of the who’s fault it is/pension fights and wanted to comment on NPR.
Like others, I like parts of it. I could be called “left leaning” at times, but that’s not why I like NPR. In certain groups I might be called “right leaning,” and that is also not why I agree that all public funding should stop for NPR. This may sound odd, but I like NPR and PBS and I also want all their public money taken away.
NPR has outlived it’s purpose. With the advent of the internet, 1000 channels, satellite radio, PPV, mobile devices, and about a dozen things yet to be invented, the public doesn’t need uncensored information. This very blog, and the thousands like it serve that purpose at no expense to the taxpayers. You Tube, Facebook, myspace, all are examples of how people have a vehicle to spread ideas, learn, connect and even become famous. When America had less than ten television channels, one or two newspapers per town and a handful of talk radio channels, NPR filled the void. There is no more void. Strip the politics out of it, forget about what team you are on, there isn’t anything NPR does that can’t be done without taxpayer money.
My favorite part of NPR/PBS was it used to be the only place to see certain concerts, especially those in another language (I blame PBS for the fact that I secretly listen to Pavarotti, Domingo, Bocelli and the like. Outside of PBS, I’d never see some of that stuff 20 years ago, but that no longer holds true. I’m sure everyone else has something they dig. But the ability to broadcast from one’s bedroom or share files has made it so simple to find anything I want, when i want. If enough people want their programming and don’t want commercials or ad driven programs, they can pay for it. I pay for XM/Sirius, I pay for HBO/Showtime/Cinemax, I pay for various sports. I do not expect tax payers to pay for me to watch Dexter without commercials, that’s my responsibility and my choice. NPR and PBS have not only outlived their usefulness, they actually contradict the principles they were based on, which was to give people an alternative, a choice, something that wasn’t influenced by money or politics.
The good stuff will get picked up by other cable channels, the radio shows people want will find their way to XM and the internet. The public can no longer be deprived of anything, that horse left the barn years ago.
March 16, 2011 at 10:55 PM #678422ParticipantForgive me if this was already mentioned, the thread went sideways in it’s usual way towards the end of page 1, so I skipped it, I’ve heard enough of the who’s fault it is/pension fights and wanted to comment on NPR.
Like others, I like parts of it. I could be called “left leaning” at times, but that’s not why I like NPR. In certain groups I might be called “right leaning,” and that is also not why I agree that all public funding should stop for NPR. This may sound odd, but I like NPR and PBS and I also want all their public money taken away.
NPR has outlived it’s purpose. With the advent of the internet, 1000 channels, satellite radio, PPV, mobile devices, and about a dozen things yet to be invented, the public doesn’t need uncensored information. This very blog, and the thousands like it serve that purpose at no expense to the taxpayers. You Tube, Facebook, myspace, all are examples of how people have a vehicle to spread ideas, learn, connect and even become famous. When America had less than ten television channels, one or two newspapers per town and a handful of talk radio channels, NPR filled the void. There is no more void. Strip the politics out of it, forget about what team you are on, there isn’t anything NPR does that can’t be done without taxpayer money.
My favorite part of NPR/PBS was it used to be the only place to see certain concerts, especially those in another language (I blame PBS for the fact that I secretly listen to Pavarotti, Domingo, Bocelli and the like. Outside of PBS, I’d never see some of that stuff 20 years ago, but that no longer holds true. I’m sure everyone else has something they dig. But the ability to broadcast from one’s bedroom or share files has made it so simple to find anything I want, when i want. If enough people want their programming and don’t want commercials or ad driven programs, they can pay for it. I pay for XM/Sirius, I pay for HBO/Showtime/Cinemax, I pay for various sports. I do not expect tax payers to pay for me to watch Dexter without commercials, that’s my responsibility and my choice. NPR and PBS have not only outlived their usefulness, they actually contradict the principles they were based on, which was to give people an alternative, a choice, something that wasn’t influenced by money or politics.
The good stuff will get picked up by other cable channels, the radio shows people want will find their way to XM and the internet. The public can no longer be deprived of anything, that horse left the barn years ago.
March 16, 2011 at 10:55 PM #678557ParticipantForgive me if this was already mentioned, the thread went sideways in it’s usual way towards the end of page 1, so I skipped it, I’ve heard enough of the who’s fault it is/pension fights and wanted to comment on NPR.
Like others, I like parts of it. I could be called “left leaning” at times, but that’s not why I like NPR. In certain groups I might be called “right leaning,” and that is also not why I agree that all public funding should stop for NPR. This may sound odd, but I like NPR and PBS and I also want all their public money taken away.
NPR has outlived it’s purpose. With the advent of the internet, 1000 channels, satellite radio, PPV, mobile devices, and about a dozen things yet to be invented, the public doesn’t need uncensored information. This very blog, and the thousands like it serve that purpose at no expense to the taxpayers. You Tube, Facebook, myspace, all are examples of how people have a vehicle to spread ideas, learn, connect and even become famous. When America had less than ten television channels, one or two newspapers per town and a handful of talk radio channels, NPR filled the void. There is no more void. Strip the politics out of it, forget about what team you are on, there isn’t anything NPR does that can’t be done without taxpayer money.
My favorite part of NPR/PBS was it used to be the only place to see certain concerts, especially those in another language (I blame PBS for the fact that I secretly listen to Pavarotti, Domingo, Bocelli and the like. Outside of PBS, I’d never see some of that stuff 20 years ago, but that no longer holds true. I’m sure everyone else has something they dig. But the ability to broadcast from one’s bedroom or share files has made it so simple to find anything I want, when i want. If enough people want their programming and don’t want commercials or ad driven programs, they can pay for it. I pay for XM/Sirius, I pay for HBO/Showtime/Cinemax, I pay for various sports. I do not expect tax payers to pay for me to watch Dexter without commercials, that’s my responsibility and my choice. NPR and PBS have not only outlived their usefulness, they actually contradict the principles they were based on, which was to give people an alternative, a choice, something that wasn’t influenced by money or politics.
The good stuff will get picked up by other cable channels, the radio shows people want will find their way to XM and the internet. The public can no longer be deprived of anything, that horse left the barn years ago.
March 16, 2011 at 10:55 PM #678900ParticipantForgive me if this was already mentioned, the thread went sideways in it’s usual way towards the end of page 1, so I skipped it, I’ve heard enough of the who’s fault it is/pension fights and wanted to comment on NPR.
Like others, I like parts of it. I could be called “left leaning” at times, but that’s not why I like NPR. In certain groups I might be called “right leaning,” and that is also not why I agree that all public funding should stop for NPR. This may sound odd, but I like NPR and PBS and I also want all their public money taken away.
NPR has outlived it’s purpose. With the advent of the internet, 1000 channels, satellite radio, PPV, mobile devices, and about a dozen things yet to be invented, the public doesn’t need uncensored information. This very blog, and the thousands like it serve that purpose at no expense to the taxpayers. You Tube, Facebook, myspace, all are examples of how people have a vehicle to spread ideas, learn, connect and even become famous. When America had less than ten television channels, one or two newspapers per town and a handful of talk radio channels, NPR filled the void. There is no more void. Strip the politics out of it, forget about what team you are on, there isn’t anything NPR does that can’t be done without taxpayer money.
My favorite part of NPR/PBS was it used to be the only place to see certain concerts, especially those in another language (I blame PBS for the fact that I secretly listen to Pavarotti, Domingo, Bocelli and the like. Outside of PBS, I’d never see some of that stuff 20 years ago, but that no longer holds true. I’m sure everyone else has something they dig. But the ability to broadcast from one’s bedroom or share files has made it so simple to find anything I want, when i want. If enough people want their programming and don’t want commercials or ad driven programs, they can pay for it. I pay for XM/Sirius, I pay for HBO/Showtime/Cinemax, I pay for various sports. I do not expect tax payers to pay for me to watch Dexter without commercials, that’s my responsibility and my choice. NPR and PBS have not only outlived their usefulness, they actually contradict the principles they were based on, which was to give people an alternative, a choice, something that wasn’t influenced by money or politics.
The good stuff will get picked up by other cable channels, the radio shows people want will find their way to XM and the internet. The public can no longer be deprived of anything, that horse left the barn years ago.
March 16, 2011 at 10:56 PM #677769CA renter
ParticipantBTW, “pension spiking” is a pet peeve of mine. However, they have already been making changes (averaging last 3 years, etc., instead of “highest of X years.”
Also, CalPERS and CalSTRS are reviewing individual cases where pension spiking is suspected, and they are reducing those benefits.
March 16, 2011 at 10:56 PM #677825ParticipantBTW, “pension spiking” is a pet peeve of mine. However, they have already been making changes (averaging last 3 years, etc., instead of “highest of X years.”
Also, CalPERS and CalSTRS are reviewing individual cases where pension spiking is suspected, and they are reducing those benefits.
March 16, 2011 at 10:56 PM #678427ParticipantBTW, “pension spiking” is a pet peeve of mine. However, they have already been making changes (averaging last 3 years, etc., instead of “highest of X years.”
Also, CalPERS and CalSTRS are reviewing individual cases where pension spiking is suspected, and they are reducing those benefits.
March 16, 2011 at 10:56 PM #678562ParticipantBTW, “pension spiking” is a pet peeve of mine. However, they have already been making changes (averaging last 3 years, etc., instead of “highest of X years.”
Also, CalPERS and CalSTRS are reviewing individual cases where pension spiking is suspected, and they are reducing those benefits.
March 16, 2011 at 10:56 PM #678905ParticipantBTW, “pension spiking” is a pet peeve of mine. However, they have already been making changes (averaging last 3 years, etc., instead of “highest of X years.”
Also, CalPERS and CalSTRS are reviewing individual cases where pension spiking is suspected, and they are reducing those benefits.
March 16, 2011 at 11:03 PM #677775davelj
Participant[quote=CA renter]
Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.[/quote]How about a 10% additional marginal tax rate on all earned income above $1 million?
And how about figuring out how to change the tax code in a manner that forces the thousands of real estate deci-millionaires in CA to actually pay income taxes?
Currently the depreciation rules are a complete joke. I routinely see credit files during loan review of folks with several $million in cash flow from real estate ventures that have, for all intents and purposes, never paid taxes… and it’s all legal.
March 16, 2011 at 11:03 PM #677830Participant[quote=CA renter]
Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.[/quote]How about a 10% additional marginal tax rate on all earned income above $1 million?
And how about figuring out how to change the tax code in a manner that forces the thousands of real estate deci-millionaires in CA to actually pay income taxes?
Currently the depreciation rules are a complete joke. I routinely see credit files during loan review of folks with several $million in cash flow from real estate ventures that have, for all intents and purposes, never paid taxes… and it’s all legal.
March 16, 2011 at 11:03 PM #678431Participant[quote=CA renter]
Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.[/quote]How about a 10% additional marginal tax rate on all earned income above $1 million?
And how about figuring out how to change the tax code in a manner that forces the thousands of real estate deci-millionaires in CA to actually pay income taxes?
Currently the depreciation rules are a complete joke. I routinely see credit files during loan review of folks with several $million in cash flow from real estate ventures that have, for all intents and purposes, never paid taxes… and it’s all legal.
March 16, 2011 at 11:03 PM #678567Participant[quote=CA renter]
Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.[/quote]How about a 10% additional marginal tax rate on all earned income above $1 million?
And how about figuring out how to change the tax code in a manner that forces the thousands of real estate deci-millionaires in CA to actually pay income taxes?
Currently the depreciation rules are a complete joke. I routinely see credit files during loan review of folks with several $million in cash flow from real estate ventures that have, for all intents and purposes, never paid taxes… and it’s all legal.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.