It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Cancels All Admins' NYT, WaPo Subs: "Will Save 100s Of 1000s Of Taxpayer Dollars"

page: 10
26
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: SeaWorthy

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: UKTruth

Live your life through assumptions and you will assume too much.



I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
So, can you explain how not buying a newspaper is an attack on free speech?




If I were to trump you, I would ignore your reply, call it an attack then proceed to remove you from my reply list.


So, you are unable to clarify how not buying a newspaper is an attack on free speech?
That's what I thought. Because it isn't.




Sure let's set a precedent as we speak , remove all media that is critical to the current administration that way we are guaranteed only positive press.


Why should the tax payer be forced to subsidize the purchase of these papers for government employees? Why cant those people in government just buy them, you know, like the rest of us? I know, radical idea.


These offices have coffee to, I bet they provide paper and pencils unlike the schools. Maybe they don't need those.


Are those papers essential to doing the job they have? If not, then why the F should we pay for it?




posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

The federal government has no business spending our tax dollars to enrich media companies while our countries infrastructure crumbles, our schools are underfunded, and people go to bed hungry. This call should have been made forever ago...even if the media outlets did report facts more than opinions. I think they should cut all the subscriptions completely. If people want news they can read it on their,phones and laptops that we already pay for with tax dollars.



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Um, why do government employees need subscriptions to newspapers? Do they read them on the taxpayer's dime? I understand many positions need "to be informed," but I don't see how the NYT does that particularly well. If I found any of my employees "reading the newspaper" at any time except during an official break, I would want a very good explanation from them before they got fired.



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

I guess a lot of the employees at the White House are having to keep an eye on the 'Positions Vacant' pages.

Kind regards,

Bally




posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

The only thing goverment seems to be competent at is wasting tax dollars.



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I agree, good thing some of that waste is gone now.



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I doubt that, those funds will be allocated to some other wasteful scheme.



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Those schemes were getting money anyways. It's a win.



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Proven time and time again!



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Hundreds of thousands from a few newspapers?
edit on 10 26 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 05:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: The2Billies

First is trump talking about all subscriptions, or just those he dont like?
Second, not everyone owns cellphones. Some of us just dont like the idea that we should be available 24/7 and feel that people wont die if they have to wait till we get home to talk to us. I only got mine when I wanted to take advantage of wal mart's pick up grocery service.
And it's a cheap prepaid phone with limited data usage... so, I'm selfish with my data usage. Unless there is wifi available, I ain't using the internet on it. Contrary to what some want to believe not everyone of limited means is walking around with top of the line cellphones with unlimited service. Dont have any games on it either.. they seem to cause problems with the phone.
Three.. of course you have to bring in the "responsibilty" lecture.. the all purpose go to for conservatives.
Four, I was just trying to explain how those subscriptions might be considered beneficial and therefore not really subsidies.
Personally, my first thoughts went to the kids who end up sitting in waiting rooms with their parents. Have you ever been in a pediatricians waiting room? They have boring, out of date magazines because they spend a small fortune on interesting and fun toys to occupy the kids because being stuck in an office with a bunch of bored, fussy, unhappy kids is gonna drive everyone nuts and cause the parents to start complaining more often about wait times. If a few subscriptions of some children's magazine will occupy some of a kids time while waiting, it's worth it!


I agree with you actually about Dr's waiting areas. I found out that people steal them and take them home to finish articles or because they want to read them. That is why there are so few or none in most Dr.'s waiting rooms. Sign of the times unfortunately.

I was saying Trump SHOULD cancel ALL print subscriptions! ALL as in from all points of view. They are a waste of government money.

Thirdly, cancelling a subscription to something one can access on line or someone can buy for themselves is not censorship at all or dictator like. No one, even Trump is stopping anyone from reading those publications. It is a shame that the government pays for ANY subscriptions and I think they should cancel them ALL. But if you don't agree, that's ok, but you won't change my mind.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 05:48 AM
link   
a reply to: YouSir
a reply to: CriticalStinker

To stay on topic in italic/underline -

Sorry that I get carried away sometimes when trying to convince people that the Federal Government not buying a newspaper is not censorship nor will it cause journalists to not be paid, nor is it the sign of a dictator.

I wonder how many of them actually get a print paper to keep "journalism" from being "destroyed" when it is not necessary at all and online ads will continue to fund journalism?


Questions for those who are upset at this and mad at Trump and thinks this will end journalism:

Do you subscribe to the NY Times and the Washington Post?

Do you subscribe to your local newspaper? If not , why not?

Don't you think you are destroying freedom of the press by not purchasing as many print papers as possible?
(FYI Both papers, all newspaper subscriptions are available to be mailed to subscribers via the post office)



Thank you both for the kind words.

I am a retired University prof. and need an outlet for my mind. I am the primary driver for grandchildren's activities, care for Mom and my ill Hubby. This is the place I get to exercise my mind. I also don't have to worry about being watching what I say so I don't hurt other's feelings when they are fragile. My daughter's exchange student said I am a really kind person. But internally I know I am not, and writing on ATS is my outlet where I am free to say what I think.

Thanks so much for the kind thoughts. I'll try to not get carried away like I do sometimes in my "venting".




edit on 10/26/19 by The2Billies because: addition formatting



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 05:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
a reply to: The2Billies




Today it is a total waste of government money to pay for any print subscription. Period.


So they pay for non print instead? if there are no paid news who pays the journalists?
This is why there is any news someone does a job someone gets paid.


Do you buy newspapers?

Online subscriptions.

Ads. How do you think online magazines/news make money? Ads, they sell ads.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: The2Billies

I just think that if they want to save money by cutting subscriptions their focus should be on how these subscriptions is serving the different agencies and such, not weather or not they express a particular viewpoint.
They could probably cut down on alot of waste if they weeded out those that served no other purpose than to coddle their staff. But, it doesnt sound like what is happening here. It sounds more like they are just cutting subscriptions that are carrying a message the current president doesnt like. And, if taken across all the agencies, that is alot of money really. So, what, while this president is in office, this group of companies are hit financially. Then when another president comes in who happens to have a different group he doesnt like, well, its another group hit financially.. and back and forth weakening the industry more and more as the years go by.
I've brought up this point in other discussions on different topics, how such large sums of money are shifted from side to side as administrations change hands. I think it's a pretty good argument against throwing the money around willy nilly to the extent that they are with no set long term goals. We build up for four years just to let what we build starve.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: 727Sky
My only regret is I did not think of this and send my thoughts to the White House but in all fairness I had no idea the government was subsidizing these papers !! What a great idea ! Wonder how bad this will affect their bottom line; layoffs to follow ?


"Hundreds of thousands of dollars"???

I've got a subscription to NYT. It's $10/month.

They're not going to have a thousand digital subscriptions to a newspaper from every department...maybe one per department... so at best, NYT has an annual loss of $3k, which can be made up from ads. Same with other subscriptions.

And it's not a subsidy. It's a subscription.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: The2Billies
It is a shame that the government pays for ANY subscriptions and I think they should cancel them ALL. But if you don't agree, that's ok, but you won't change my mind.


As another professor, I will disagree here.

Remember the cost of professional journals and subscriptions. While I would love to be able to pay for all the access articles I need (and this includes things I get through JSTOR), there's some things that aren't available through these channels and where access is very costly.

And yeah, we can get into the changing economics of that... but, still, to branches like NASA and to the military (military tech journals), these things are important and departmental subscriptions mean access for everyone in the department and not just access for those who can afford it and think to buy it. Departmental access also allows for a broader spectrum of information rather than a narrow cherry-picked access by a single individual.

Speaking from experience... your mileage may vary.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: The2Billies
It is a shame that the government pays for ANY subscriptions and I think they should cancel them ALL. But if you don't agree, that's ok, but you won't change my mind.


As another professor, I will disagree here.

Remember the cost of professional journals and subscriptions. While I would love to be able to pay for all the access articles I need (and this includes things I get through JSTOR), there's some things that aren't available through these channels and where access is very costly.

And yeah, we can get into the changing economics of that... but, still, to branches like NASA and to the military (military tech journals), these things are important and departmental subscriptions mean access for everyone in the department and not just access for those who can afford it and think to buy it. Departmental access also allows for a broader spectrum of information rather than a narrow cherry-picked access by a single individual.

Speaking from experience... your mileage may vary.


Professional journals are in a different category from newspapers and magazines.

I would not count professional journals as that sort of subscription.

However, most if no all are also available online for the department to subscribe to, just as Universities do for professional journals. These are not the types of subscriptions that the government should not be paying for, they should not pay for newspapers or magazines (professional journals are not magazines as you are well aware).

How one could think I would confuse a professional journal with newspaper rags used under bird cages or magazines found on the rack at stores is beyond me.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: The2Billies

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: The2Billies
It is a shame that the government pays for ANY subscriptions and I think they should cancel them ALL. But if you don't agree, that's ok, but you won't change my mind.


As another professor, I will disagree here.

Remember the cost of professional journals and subscriptions.
(snip)

Speaking from experience... your mileage may vary.


Professional journals are in a different category from newspapers and magazines.

I would not count professional journals as that sort of subscription.

However, most if no all are also available online for the department to subscribe to, just as Universities do for professional journals. These are not the types of subscriptions that the government should not be paying for, they should not pay for newspapers or magazines (professional journals are not magazines as you are well aware).

How one could think I would confuse a professional journal with newspaper rags used under bird cages or magazines found on the rack at stores is beyond me.


I was responding to the part of your statement that I've bolded, above.

Government entities do subscribe to professional journals; the Agricultural Officers in my area certainly do (and have done so for a long time)

That said, the original article and the discussion seemed to be aimed at "all subscriptions." So I went back to the thread's source article and checked THEIR source (Wall Street Journal) :



White House plans to direct government staffers to not renew orders with the newspapers, whose coverage he has disparaged as ‘fake’
By Andrew Restuccia
Updated Oct. 24, 2019 4:07 pm ET
WASHINGTON—The White House is planning to instruct federal agencies to not renew their subscriptions to the New York Times and the Washington Post, administration officials said, escalating President Trump’s attacks on the media outlets.

source: www.wsj.com...


So it's not canceling all subscriptions (which, again, seemed to be implied in the discussion and hopefully other subscriptions are left alone), just the ones that Trump calls 'fake'. The US governmental departments will be able to maintain subscriptions of media that Trump finds "acceptable"... possibly until Trump suddenly finds them unacceptable for one reason or another.

I don't think this is a good idea.

I would quibble with the "cost hundreds of thousands of dollars" stated in the OP's headline and article.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Well seeing that Trump's brilliant management of the economy has increased the budget deficit by 26% he better cancel a crap-load more subscriptions.



posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 03:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: UKTruth

Live your life through assumptions and you will assume too much.



I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
So, can you explain how not buying a newspaper is an attack on free speech?




If I were to trump you, I would ignore your reply, call it an attack then proceed to remove you from my reply list.


So, you are unable to clarify how not buying a newspaper is an attack on free speech?
That's what I thought. Because it isn't.




Sure let's set a precedent as we speak , remove all media that is critical to the current administration that way we are guaranteed only positive press.


Did you not read the several posts in this thread that points out that the federal employees are welcomed to buy their own NYT or WAPO paper?

Why do you think we should be wasting tax payer money on something that the employee should buy for themselves?



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join