Broadcasting charge

alastair

dlouth15 wrote: »

According the the article quoted in the opening post, 1 in 5 households don't pay the RTE tax. This means that 1 in 5 either have no television (i.e. foregoing all television, not merely RTE) or have a TV and are risking prosecution. That's quite a high proportion.

TV licence evasion is, and always has been high. But those who do pay are the only ones subsidising all RTE activities, including the orchestras. My point is again: 'Not one cent went to RTE that wasn't paid for by someone who felt they couldn't do without their telly licence - they felt they could afford the €160. '

dlouth15

alastair wrote: »

TV licence evasion is, and always has been high. But those who do pay are the only ones subsidising all RTE activities, including the orchestras. My point is again: 'Not one cent went to RTE that wasn't paid for by someone who felt they couldn't do without their telly licence - they felt they could afford the €160. '

It may still be a stretch for many of them.

alastair

dlouth15 wrote: »

It may still be a stretch for many of them.

Quite possibly - but they still made that choice.

dlouth15

alastair wrote: »

Quite possibly - but they still made that choice.

The problem is that it's not a fair choice. You might argue that if they did not agree with the services provided by RTE then they needn't have paid the licence. But that would have meant forgoing all television.

Why not have a system where those who want to access RTE, pay for that access and those who don't want access can still avail of television provided by others?

realitykeeper

Manach wrote: »

My own issue is how they mean to collect the data to show the households access the non-traditional media.

You are legally liable by virtue of the fact that you can access it. That said, I think the licence revenue ought not be exclusively for the benefit of RTE.

Carawaystick

alastair wrote: »

You've been paying €3 a week (assuming you have a TV licence) in taxes to support the orchestras, as well as the rest of activities from RTE, TG4, and whatever supports the independent broadcasters get from that fund. So, yeah, it's part of what your taxes are paying for. It's a lot of money, for sure, but national orchestras don't come cheap. Is it over the odds? Dunno. The Scottish government spends £27 million per annum on a roughly similar set of Arts provision, but they have an Opera in the mix, and there's additional Arts Council and Lottery funding on top of that. Swings and roundabouts. The six BBC orchestras and choral groups cost £32.3 million per annum to run - and they pull in £3.2 million a year.

Keep in mind also, that the RTE orchestras brought back in €15 million over those years, and there's a couple of hundred jobs supported by the expenditure.

I think from the rte accounts that tg4 gets as much of the license fee as the rte orchestras do. tg4 is a real public service broadcaster, their documentaries are class.

taxing people to give others a job is hardly the secret to getting the economy out of the hole it's in.

In what world would the state force people to pay for certain bands while every other band has to make a commercial profit or become hobbiest musicians or break up.

I strongly object to the elitism of a state sponsored orchestra playing classical music.

Where is the state sponsored heavy metal or hard house or any modern music

There are huge tax breaks only for members of the rte orchestras also available from revenue row 150/151 of the excell file
https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.revenue.ie%2Fen%2Ftax%2Fit%2Fleaflets%2Fflat-rate-expenses.xls&ei=luL2UbHvJLCM7AaU_4GACw&usg=AFQjCNE7-P6wEwfkDl2zAO1bdiWIwFzl3g&sig2=2atPpXzkiPEfg44xB5-8Bw&bvm=bv.49784469,d.ZGU

alastair

Carawaystick wrote: »

taxing people to give others a job is hardly the secret to getting the economy out of the hole it's in.

In what world would the state force people to pay for certain bands while every other band has to make a commercial profit or become hobbiest musicians or break up.

I strongly object to the elitism of a state sponsored orchestra playing classical music.

Where is the state sponsored heavy metal or hard house or any modern music

There are huge tax breaks only for members of the rte orchestras also available from revenue row 150/151 of the excell file
https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.revenue.ie%2Fen%2Ftax%2Fit%2Fleaflets%2Fflat-rate-expenses.xls&ei=luL2UbHvJLCM7AaU_4GACw&usg=AFQjCNE7-P6wEwfkDl2zAO1bdiWIwFzl3g&sig2=2atPpXzkiPEfg44xB5-8Bw&bvm=bv.49784469,d.ZGU

No-one's claiming that providing classical musicians with subsidised jobs is the key to recovery. I'm just pointing out that much of that subvention works it's way straight back into the economy.

There's a difference in funding something on the scale of a symphony orchestra, and a four piece pop/rock/metal/trad band. The fact that you tend not to see independent gigging orchestras might offer a clue as to their commercial viability outside the subsidised world. Jools Holland has spoken about how hard it is to turn a profit with the logistics of his big band - and he's well known, and offering pretty mainstream musical material.

The orchestra is only 'elite' in your own mind. You can go see them play live from a tenner up, and they're free/covered by your licence fee on the radio. How's that elitist?

There are state supports for modern music too. Check out the Arts Council for where their grants go.

The orchestral musicians' tax breaks are for the purchase of musical equipment. Not really a loophole that would be of interest to many.

alastair

dlouth15 wrote: »

The problem is that it's not a fair choice. You might argue that if they did not agree with the services provided by RTE then they needn't have paid the licence. But that would have meant forgoing all television.

Why not have a system where those who want to access RTE, pay for that access and those who don't want access can still avail of television provided by others?

How's that going to work then? An honour system? Supply every householder with a card pay-to-view system and then figure out how to deal with radio?

dlouth15

alastair wrote: »

Supply every householder with a card pay-to-view system and then figure out how to deal with radio?

Here's what I think should be done.

Greater use of the internet for content delivery needs to be looked into. One of the justifications of this new charge is that apparently many are using these means to access what would have only been available on television.

Pay per view, subscriptions etc. None of this was possible in the past but is now. A small public subsidy for public service content could continue and this would be available to all broadcasters.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

No-one's claiming that providing classical musicians with subsidised jobs is the key to recovery. I'm just pointing out that much of that subvention works it's way straight back into the economy.

This is straight out of the Joan Burton Tomfoolery School of Gombeen Economics. While claiming that you agree that it won`t drive the economy in your first line you temper it with a second line that claims ah sure it`ll be grand, the money will work its way "straight back into the economy".

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

This is straight out of the Joan Burton Tomfoolery School of Gombeen Economics. Welfare as the economic driving force.

But you take the nonsense one step further. While claiming that you agree that it won`t drive the economy in your first line you temper it with a second line that claims ah sure it`ll be grand, the money will work its way "straight back into the economy".

Are you saying that those salaries won't work their way straight back into the economy? And you're also disputing the basic premis of economic stimulus?

Interesting.

alastair

dlouth15 wrote: »

Here's what I think should be done.

Greater use of the internet for content delivery needs to be looked into. One of the justifications of this new charge is that apparently many are using these means to access what would have only been available on television.

Pay per view, subscriptions etc. None of this was possible in the past but is now. A small public subsidy for public service content could continue and this would be available to all broadcasters.

A nation that has broadband penetration as poor as our own isn't anywhere near shifting to an Internet-based broadcast system. It would also impose costs on the populace far greater than the proposed RTE levy.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

Are you saying that those salaries won't work their way straight back into the economy? And you're also disputing the basic premis of economic stimulus?

Interesting.

The money is completely wasted. It leaks out of the country because its an open economy. If we were North Korea we could discuss the merits of this sort of crap.

There is no economic benefit to this nonsense. NONE

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

The money is completely wasted. It leaks out of the country because its an open economy. If we were North Korea we could discuss the merits of this sort of crap.

There is no economic benefit to this nonsense. NONE

The caps thing doesn't really help persuade. You're in a minority if you don't accept the principle of economic stimulus.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

The caps thing doesn't really help persuade. You're in a minority if you don't accept the principle of economic stimulus.

Are you seriously classifying an Orchestra as "economic stimulus"?

the butcher

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you seriously classifying an Orchestra as "economic stimulus"?

Haha, sure we should be funding every metal, dance, indie act that sprouts up for economic stimulus.

That poster should go work for Joan Burton under the job bridge scheme, provide us with a bit more stimulus.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you seriously classifying an Orchestra as "economic stimulus"?

Why not? It's keeping a couple of hundred people in wages, and generates a fair bit of revenue around ancillary services, aside from tickets sales income (€15 million for those five years).

alastair

alastair wrote: »

Why not? It's keeping a couple of hundred people in wages, and generates a fair bit of revenue around ancillary services, aside from tickets sales income (€15 million for those five years).

jaysus, again it doesn`t generate any money it is a total loss. Show me how it makes more money than it costs and then we can discuss what sort of an investment it is.

Sure why don`t we employ everyone on the dole and pay them 100k a year and we`ll all be rich in no time. Voodoo economics 101 by alastair. Why not go the whole hog and have the state employ everyone and we`ll see how far we get. Back to North Korean economics.

mikom

alastair wrote: »

Why not? It's keeping a couple of hundred people in wages, and generates a fair bit of revenue around ancillary services, aside from tickets sales income (€15 million for those five years).

The secret is to run the gas off the electric and the electric off the gas.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

jaysus, again it doesn`t generate any money it is a total loss. Show me how it makes more money than it costs and then we can discuss what sort of an investment it is.

Sure why don`t we employ everyone on the dole and pay them 100k a year and we`ll all be rich in no time. Voodoo economics 101 by alastair. Why not go the whole hog and have the state employ everyone and we`ll see how far we get. Back to North Korean economics.

Come back when you've a better grasp on economic stimulus, and less of a tendency to put words in other people's mouths. I didn't realise Keynes was a north Korean?

alastair

alastair wrote: »

Come back when you've a better grasp on economic stimulus, and less of a tendency to put words in other people's mouths. I didn't realise Keynes was a north Korean?

Clearly your knowledge of economic stimulus is superior. If only we had you in charge we could have hundreds of orchestras and the economy would be flying

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Clearly your knowledge of economic stimulus is superior. If only we had you in charge we could have hundreds of orchestras and the economy would be flying

Again:

"a tendency to put words in other people's mouths"

Not particularly clever.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

Again:

"a tendency to put words in other people's mouths"

Not particularly clever.

Have you changed your mind or what? Do you see it as a stimulus or not?

rovert

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.joe.ie/entertainment/television/rte-spent-e45000-a-day-on-orchestras-over-six-year-period/






No oversight, nobody ever batted an eyelid as it went on and on. Is it still going on? Is this what our taxes are paying for?

If you ask me they have been making fools out of tax payers

This takes some brass.

OMD

alastair wrote: »

Come back when you've a better grasp on economic stimulus, and less of a tendency to put words in other people's mouths. I didn't realise Keynes was a north Korean?

For an outside point of view, I am afraid Alastair you are the one who is demonstrating a massive lack of understanding of the very basic fundamentals of economics. Your posts on this issue are absolute nonsense with nothing to back it up in any way.

the butcher

I like the way alastair just posted that in the 5 years, it brought in 15 million. But never states that it costs 16 million A YEAR. That's 80 in 5 years.

So the loss is over 65 million overall. That is not a good return whatsoever. So economic stimulus? Sorry but no. Void argument.

People can write music from their laptops, pool resources together as a band and perform live at gigs, use their own money to record/distribute albums etc. Costs a band between 1500-3000 to make an album/EP these days.

Why should classical music be subsided so heavily in this way? I would prefer a ton of artists from any class background creating music than elites from one genre being subsided by the taxpayer. That's what it boils down to.

alastair

OMD wrote: »

For an outside point of view, I am afraid Alastair you are the one who is demonstrating a massive lack of understanding of the very basic fundamentals of economics. Your posts on this issue are absolute nonsense with nothing to back it up in any way.

Well that's me convinced!

Or not.

alastair

the butcher wrote: »

I like the way alastair just posted that in the 5 years, it brought in 15 million. But never states that it costs 16 million A YEAR.

I didn't?

Clue: I did.

beeno67

alastair wrote: »

Why not? It's keeping a couple of hundred people in wages, and generates a fair bit of revenue around ancillary services, aside from tickets sales income (€15 million for those five years).

It costs about 14,000 to create a job in Ireland. So the €85 million net that these orchestras cost could have been used to stimulate the economy and create over 4500 jobs instead of the "couple of hundred" unsustainable jobs they have created.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/shannon-development-posts-highest-cost-per-job-created-201118.html
Figures provided by the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Richard Bruton, confirm the cost per job created by Shannon Development equalled €16,139 last year.

This compared to the €14,202 cost per job created by the IDA and the €12,024 cost per job created by Enterprise Ireland.

wolf99

dlouth15 wrote: »

One of the justifications of this new charge is that apparently many are using these means to access what would have only been available on television.

So... now we need to pay RTE for the use of the entire internets?

Should have thought the ISPs would have something to say about that (the ones that give a dogs proverbials about the Irish market, oh, whats that? none do? well there you go).

alastair

beeno67 wrote: »

It costs about 14,000 to create a job in Ireland. So the €85 million net that these orchestras cost could have been used to stimulate the economy and create over 4500 jobs instead of the "couple of hundred" unsustainable jobs they have created.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/shannon-development-posts-highest-cost-per-job-created-201118.html
Figures provided by the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Richard Bruton, confirm the cost per job created by Shannon Development equalled €16,139 last year.

This compared to the €14,202 cost per job created by the IDA and the €12,024 cost per job created by Enterprise Ireland.

I don't believe that the IDA has had it's budget cut, so it should have no need to dip into the TV licence fund, or shut down the RTE orchestra to create lots of €14,202 jobs. I suspect however, that it costs rather more to create an orchestral musician's job, and rather more to keep it going, but sure who needs the arts - it's not like they contribute to the economy over the long term - and aren't there private symphony orchestras at every street corner, ready to busk for a few oul pennies?

beeno67

alastair wrote: »

I don't believe that the IDA has had it's budget cut, so it should have no need to dip into the TV licence fund, or shut down the RTE orchestra to create lots of €14,202 jobs. I suspect however, that it costs rather more to create an orchestral musician's job, and rather more to keep it going, but sure who needs the arts - it's not like they contribute to the economy over the long term - and aren't there private symphony orchestras at every street corner, ready to busk for a few oul pennies?

You were saying paying out this €85 million would help stimulate the economy. As others have said this is incorrect thinking. I gave you some figures to help explain this to you.

Your second argument now is a very different one. Do we want to spend this €85 million to support the arts and if we do, is giving it to RTE to fund orchestras the best way to do it? Personally speaking I believe the €85 million could support the arts in much better ways. It could even support the Arts and benefit the economy.

Anyway should we not have a choice how our money is spent?

alastair

beeno67 wrote: »

You were saying paying out this €85 million would help stimulate the economy. As others have said this is incorrect thinking. I gave you some figures to help explain this to you.

Firstly - I did not say paying out €85 million would help stimulate the economy. What I did say was that much of that subsidy would go straight back into the economy via the spending of those salaries, and the spending of those who rely on the orchestras for their livelihood. To that degree it's a stimulus package - with all the usual debate about what degree of fiscal multiplier is applicable. If you bother to read what I posted, you'd note that I said:

No-one's claiming that providing classical musicians with subsidised jobs is the key to recovery. I'm just pointing out that much of that subvention works it's way straight back into the economy.

Secondly - if we remove the state support for the orchestras, there's little doubt that they would close, along with whatever knock-on impact it would have on related services. The same dynamic is true of other countries - orchestras are just very expensive propositions to keep running. The comparative costs and income generated by the BBC orchestras suggest we're not paying over the odds for the orchestras here. Without them, we'll just have to import any orchestral performances, and push classical music into an elitist ghetto that it's managing to avoid with the costs of performances as they stand. The cost of re-establishing a national orchestra would probably push us well into genuine unaffordability. Pinch pennies now, spend pounds later.

alastair

beeno67 wrote: »

Anyway should we not have a choice how our money is spent?

Which other area of tax expenditure do you get to dictate/choose/control? Just curious.

carpejugulum

alastair wrote: »

Which other area of tax expenditure do you get to dictate/choose/control? Just curious.

Ideally all of them.
Or are we now at a stage where saying how our money is spent is not even debatable?

alastair

carpejugulum wrote: »

Ideally all of them.
Or are we now at a stage where saying how our money is spent is not even debatable?

'Ideally' sounds aspirational. I was asking about the current reality. Aside from the broad brushstroke leverage you have each general/local election?

ardmacha

This idea of choosing what you pay for has possibilities.
I don't use drug clinics. I should not have to pay for them, let those who use them pay.

alastair

ardmacha wrote: »

This idea of choosing what you pay for has possibilities.
I don't use drug clinics. I should not have to pay for them, let those who use them pay.

And there's the reason why populist pick-and-choose taxation expenditure will never be a great idea.

beeno67

alastair wrote: »

Firstly - I did not say paying out €85 million would help stimulate the economy. What I did say was that much of that subsidy would go straight back into the economy via the spending of those salaries, and the spending of those who rely on the orchestras for their livelihood. To that degree it's a stimulus package - with all the usual debate about what degree of fiscal multiplier is applicable. If you bother to read what I posted, you'd note that I said:

You were asked

Are you seriously classifying an Orchestra as "economic stimulus"?

To which you replied
Why not? It's keeping a couple of hundred people in wages, and generates a fair bit of revenue around ancillary services, aside from tickets sales income (€15 million for those five years).



So you did not say it would stimulate the economy. So it is an economic stimulus but will not help stimulate the economy. Glad you cleared that up.
Boy I feel stupid now. Sorry about that.

alastair

beeno67 wrote: »

You were asked

Are you seriously classifying an Orchestra as "economic stimulus"?

To which you replied
Why not? It's keeping a couple of hundred people in wages, and generates a fair bit of revenue around ancillary services, aside from tickets sales income (€15 million for those five years).



So you did not say it would stimulate the economy. So it is an economic stimulus but will not help stimulate the economy. Glad you cleared that up.
Boy I feel stupid now. Sorry about that.

The Orchestras are not funded for economic stimulus purposes - they're funded for cultural purposes - that's why we invest that €85 million in them - like I've already said - they're no key to recovery. It's rather childish, however, to claim that there's no economic stimulus accruing from keeping a couple of hundred jobs, plus peripheral jobs on the go. Sorry you feel stupid.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

The Orchestras are not funded for economic stimulus purposes - they're funded for cultural purposes - that's why we invest that €85 million in them - like I've already said - they're no key to recovery. It's rather childish, however, to claim that there's no economic stimulus accruing from keeping a couple of hundred jobs, plus peripheral jobs on the go. Sorry you feel stupid.

1) How is it an economic stimulus if it makes a loss?
2) If it costs 1.4 million a month to kept approx 200 people in an orchestra how would it cost to expand this stimulus to cover 400,000 people? And do you think we should do this? If not then why not?

ardmacha

1) How is it an economic stimulus if it makes a loss?

It leads to money being spent in the economy.

2) If it costs 1.4 million a month to kept approx 200 people in an orchestra how would it cost to expand this stimulus to cover 400,000 people? And do you think we should do this? If not then why not?

One orchestra is a cultural benefit. 2000 ochestras do not offer subtantially greater public benefit than one or two.

Max Powers

Orchestra! we are a bankrupt country, i would have thought when RTE and the country at large were making the cuts over the last few years that elitist bull like this would have been scrapped. we cant afford luxuries like this which bring in little to no money for the state. At least with museums etc, tourists use them and encourage them to stay, no one is coming to Ireland to listen to the rte orchestra

rte is a farce, let it stand on its own feet (without public funding).

ardmacha

ardmacha wrote: »

It leads to money being spent in the economy.

Only by taking money out of the economy. You certainly can claim taxation to spend on infrastructure etc can create a stimulus but an orchestra is not productive.

ardmacha wrote: »

One orchestra is a cultural benefit. 2000 ochestras do not offer subtantially greater public benefit than one or two.

We are talking about economic stimulus. The point being made is that it is a net loss and expanding it would be a net loss even if 2,000 orchestras were of a greater public cultural benefit than one or two.

Also worth noting is that you have to pay to see the orchestra and not everyone wants to go see them even if it was free. Nobody should have to subsidize someone else`s entertainment especially not when they/we are bankrupt.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Only by taking money out of the economy. You certainly can claim taxation to spend on infrastructure etc can create a stimulus but an orchestra is not productive.

The money was spent on keeping the orchestras going - within the economy. It's not like it was poured down a hole. How do you know it's not productive in the long term? Riverdance has been a major cash cow, and the producers have gone to great lengths to point out that the skills and expertise that made that happen were reliant on state subsidies.

Deleted User wrote: »

Also worth noting is that you have to pay to see the orchestra and not everyone wants to go see them even if it was free. Nobody should have to subsidize someone else`s entertainment especially not when they/we are bankrupt.

You can listen to them on the radio without spending anything over your TV licence. And tickets are pretty reasonable - far from an elitist pricing structure. The argument about not wanting to pay taxes for things you don't personally make use of is a bit of a blind alley.

alastair

Max Powers wrote: »

At least with museums etc, tourists use them and encourage them to stay, no one is coming to Ireland to listen to the rte orchestra

You sure about this? The NCH has the third highest footfall of visitors to cultural institutions in Dublin - ahead of the National Gallery and The National Museums.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/01/31/00046.asp

jman0war

alastair wrote: »

You sure about this? The NCH has the third highest footfall of visitors to cultural institutions in Dublin - ahead of the National Gallery and The National Museums.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/01/31/00046.asp

No it doesn't.
Your own link shows that it trails behind:

National Gallery of Ireland
National Museum, Kildare Street
Irish Museum of Modern Art
National Museum, Collins Barracks

alastair

jman0war wrote: »

No it doesn't.
Your own link shows that it trails behind:

National Gallery of Ireland
National Museum, Kildare Street
Irish Museum of Modern Art
National Museum, Collins Barracks

My mistake - It's still 6th highest footfall (and not far off 5th place), and that's competing with primarily free admission attractions (we aren't given figures for the breakdown of permanent exhibition/paid exhibition in the National Gallery or IMMA). Surprised how much of a pull IMMA is!

beeno67

alastair wrote: »

The Orchestras are not funded for economic stimulus purposes - they're funded for cultural purposes - that's why we invest that €85 million in them - like I've already said - they're no key to recovery. It's rather childish, however, to claim that there's no economic stimulus accruing from keeping a couple of hundred jobs, plus peripheral jobs on the go. Sorry you feel stupid.

I know I should leave this but your continued use of the term economic stimulus is annoying me. An economic stimulus is defined as follows.
In economics, stimulus refers to attempts to use monetary or fiscal policy (or stabilization policy in general) to stimulate the economy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulus_(economics)

Or

An Economic Stimulus package is an attempt by the government to boost economic growth and lead the economy out of a recession or economic slowdown. The two main ways for stimulating the economy are expansionary monetary policy and expansionary fiscal policy.
http://www.economicshelp.org/dictionary/e/economics-stimulus-package.html


There is no possibility that anyone in their right mind could say spending 85 million on a few hundred jobs in an orchestra is an economic stimulus. It is a ridiculous statement yet despite numerous people pointing this out to you, you stick your fingers in your ears shout Nah Nah Nah and carry on regardless. You can argue the pluses or otherwise of spending the money on an orchestra but please stop calling it an economic stimulus.

alastair

beeno67 wrote: »

I know I should leave this but your continued use of the term economic stimulus is annoying me. An economic stimulus is defined as follows.
In economics, stimulus refers to attempts to use monetary or fiscal policy (or stabilization policy in general) to stimulate the economy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulus_(economics)

Or

An Economic Stimulus package is an attempt by the government to boost economic growth and lead the economy out of a recession or economic slowdown. The two main ways for stimulating the economy are expansionary monetary policy and expansionary fiscal policy.
http://www.economicshelp.org/dictionary/e/economics-stimulus-package.html


There is no possibility that anyone in their right mind could say spending 85 million on a few hundred jobs in an orchestra is an economic stimulus. It is a ridiculous statement yet despite numerous people pointing this out to you, you stick your fingers in your ears shout Nah Nah Nah and carry on regardless. You can argue the pluses or otherwise of spending the money on an orchestra but please stop calling it an economic stimulus.

I will when everyone else who recognises that the subsidies have an economic stimulus aspect to them does. Sorry if that offends.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99916513

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/arts/16mone.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0