How do you feel about cutting $9 billion from public broadcasting and foreign aid?

[Cubus]

The White House-requested spending cuts narrowly made it through the Senate in a 51-48 vote after GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine voted “no” alongside Democrats. One Democrat (Tina Smith of Minnesota) was absent

Republicans added language vowing that other areas related to food aid, maternal health, malaria and tuberculosis wouldn’t be impacted and that certain food assistance programs would be protected. The administration also privately vowed to move around other funding to help offset funding cuts to rural public news stations to win over Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S. D).

It marks the first time in decades that a rescissions package has been approved by the Senate. In 2018, the GOP-controlled chamber narrowly blocked a $15 billion request from Trump, after Collins and then-Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina opposed it.

Because Senate Republicans made changes to the legislation it will need to bounce back to the House,

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/17/senate-votes-to-cut-9-billion-from-public-broadcasting-and-foreign-aid-00459199

[OlderAndWiser]

NPR and PBS are semi-public services but they have become increasingly partisan in a very open and defiant way, as if it is their right to use public funds to advance a decidedly leftist agenda. Why should I, a conservative taxpayer, be forced to pay taxes to advance an ideology which I think is abhorrent? Everyone at PBS and NPR can go fuck themselves, except Norm Abrams and the TOH crew.

I don't know anything about the foreign aid provisions. Despite my conservative beliefs, I also understand that foreign aid is necessary to maintain global alliances, so I would need more information before forming any opinions.

[OlderAndWiser]

Thanks for MHO!

[Cubus]

You're welcome.

[Pterodon]

All for it. Too biased. Did you know NPR doesn’t have a single registered republican in its staff?

[kavakava]

😜😜😜😜😜😜

Imagine if taxpayers had to pay for Republican radio and Republican tv. The Democrats would shit bricks. Can you imagine an American taxpayer wanting to pay for dei training in burma? Or how about paying for sesame Street and Iraq? It wouldn't happen. No one would pay. So why did Democrats support it? Because they want to be accepted among other democrats.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Petty Trump and republicans in general just cutting the things that made him feel bad because they didn't worship him. Pathetic excuse for a human being.

[Avicenna]

It’s about time. Partisan broadcasting should not be funded by taxpayers.

[Syntosi]

... The partisanship was in favor of American national interests. Its funny how you ramble about "MAGA" but when it actually comes to putting America first then this is your response.

[Avicenna]

@Syntosi: Your vague and illogical response is emblematic of the problem posed by PBS and NPR being propaganda arms of the Democratic Party- you arrogantly assume you have all the answers and only your way is "correct". As regards USAID, that ended up largely pushing a leftist social agenda and even "color revolutions" abroad- as if they are in "the national interest". is it in the national interest to be pushing homosexuality in countries like Uganda, something which actually damages US interests because it insults the country and its values. In addition, even some designated terror groups got USAID funding.

Someone as hyperpartisan and unreasonable as you would only be angry if his agenda were not being funded or funded less. And that's the case here.

[Syntosi]

Its always so clear that the right wing has literally no idea what they are talking about. I mean seriously, you take sesame street telling children that they should be happy as a personal attack and you also dont understand that USAID is an intelligence operation. In other words, USAID is meant to collect information, spread propaganda and destabilize enemies.

Even if you think that they are spreading "leftist social agenda" and "color revolution", would you not want enemies of USA to be burdened by things that you believe are harmful? Whose side are you on even at this point?

[Avicenna]

@Syntosi: LMAO, are countries like Ukraine, Georgia, and Hungary enemies of the US? Also, I don't find it at all unreasonable to avoid meddling in other countries' business, especially when there is no US national interest at stake. And spreading propaganda? Why do we need to do that? Even the biggest cheerleaders for USAID admit only a minority of its budget actually goes to aid. Why do we need to fund
-"LGBT activism"
-"Trans operas"
-"Sex changes"
-"DEI in Serbia"
-Al Qaeda and the Taliban

I'm not on the side of criminals who abuse governmental power and fund terrorism, that's for sure.

[Syntosi]

From a geopolitical point of view, everyone is a competitor if not outright an enemy. There is a reason why we all spy on each other, have invasion plans for every other nation and will happily backstab each other in trade negotiations. "Friendship" does not really exist on a national level so yes, it makes perfect sense to undermine countries like Ukraine, George and especially Hungary if it means that they are too busy to put up any resistance to your advances, be they diplomatic, trade or otherwise.

And again, it truly goes to show how little you understand when you can't even draw the parallel between funding the Taliban and having them fight the Soviet Union.

[Avicenna]

@Syntosi: Uh, the Taliban was founded after the Soviets left Afghanistan. I think you meant Al-Qaida.

Your suggestion that all countries be undermined is ridiculous and a waste of resources. But Hungary, a NATO ally, is hardly in the same boat as the Soviet Union was in the 1980s are far as we’re concerned geopolitically. I mean, none of this stuff occurs in a vacuum , either.

Why undermine countries instead of leveraging things like having access to the US consumer market or US military protection? What you’re suggesting is hostile and counterproductive.

[DonaldDarko]

Seems like it could have been more than that but it's a good start.

[exitseven]

Good, spending taxpayer dollars for democrats propaga da does not ser e the public good.