Re: Mitt Romney, PBS

[Thor]

lol wtf Az you are not that crazy right.........

Most of the major funding to PBS is foundations...

I might be totally wrong, and if so, please correct me.

[Flame Of Liberty]

is there ANYTHING that you guys don't want to be publicly funded?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

is there ANYTHING that you guys don't want to be publicly funded?

Let's see....

- Illegal wars
- Illegal wiretapping/surveilance
- Tax cuts for the rich
- Corporate welfare
- Farm subsidies

To name a few.

PBS is literally jack#### of the total federal budget. A less than 0.1% cut of the budget, while likely raising military spending anywhere from 5-10% (which Romney will do...likely higher when war with Iran is assured), is, how shall I put this, ######ed. Cut em both, or don't cut either, but saying cutting PBS is being a budget hawk is silly. And with that, there's your greenlight to go ahead and respond with your typical insult about how we're all commies.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

is there ANYTHING that you guys don't want to be publicly funded?

can you give us your list of what should be covered then?

[Yasa]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Let's see....

- Illegal wars
- Illegal wiretapping/surveilance
- Tax cuts for the rich
- Corporate welfare
- Farm subsidies

To name a few.

PBS is literally jack#### of the total federal budget. A less than 0.1% cut of the budget, while likely raising military spending anywhere from 5-10% (which Romney will do...likely higher when war with Iran is assured), is, how shall I put this, ######ed. Cut em both, or don't cut either, but saying cutting PBS is being a budget hawk is silly. And with that, there's your greenlight to go ahead and respond with your typical insult about how we're all commies.

PBS budget last year was 200 million, of a budget of 2.3 trillion, which is million billion zillion something percent of another thing and stuff and nonsense

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Thor

lol wtf Az you are not that crazy right.........

Most of the major funding to PBS is foundations...

I might be totally wrong, and if so, please correct me.

Private foundations, which makes it private funding.

Romney saying he will cut federal funding for PBS is laughable in two ways. That he actually think its a problem, and that people are getting outraged.

The amount of money they get from the government makes little difference in their programming.

Thanks for the personal attack though. Always nice to see.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Let's see....

- Illegal wars
- Illegal wiretapping/surveilance
- Tax cuts for the rich
- Corporate welfare
- Farm subsidies

To name a few.

PBS is literally jack#### of the total federal budget. A less than 0.1% cut of the budget, while likely raising military spending anywhere from 5-10% (which Romney will do...likely higher when war with Iran is assured), is, how shall I put this, ######ed. Cut em both, or don't cut either, but saying cutting PBS is being a budget hawk is silly. And with that, there's your greenlight to go ahead and respond with your typical insult about how we're all commies.

Romney making a point of saying he will cut PBS funding is him trying to appeal to his base. Of course it makes him look stupid in two ways. One he openly says he won't cut military funding which is becoming more bloated every year, and that he actually thinks cutting PBS funding will make a difference.

If across the board cuts result in cutting federal funding for PBS, fine. That is the price you pay for spending like drunken sailors for years. But picking and choosing what to cut won't work. PBS is hardly the problem.

[Ozy_Flame]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theova...ebate/1616815/

Sherrie Westin, executive vice president and chief marketing officer of Sesame Workshop, told CNN that it "receives very, very little funding from PBS. So, we are able to raise our funding through philanthropic, through our licensed product, which goes back into the educational programming, through corporate underwriting and sponsorship.

If Sesame Street admits they receive little funding as it is, then this is just drops in a barrel Romney is making a big deal about over nothing. The thing is, he's done more damage to himself by proverbially threatening the very livelihood of a children's institution.

Not a smart campaign move, Mitty ol' boy.

[Azure]

The outrage is equally stupid.

Romney should be called on deflecting from the issue from where the money is ACTUALLY being spent, and not for actually saying he would cut funding.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Yasa

PBS budget last year was 200 million, of a budget of 2.3 trillion, which is 0.00009% of the budget.

You may want to check your math on that.

200 million is 0.01% of 2 trillion.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theova...ebate/1616815/

Sherrie Westin, executive vice president and chief marketing officer of Sesame Workshop, told CNN that it "receives very, very little funding from PBS. So, we are able to raise our funding through philanthropic, through our licensed product, which goes back into the educational programming, through corporate underwriting and sponsorship.

If Sesame Street admits they receive little funding as it is, then this is just drops in a barrel Romney is making a big deal about over nothing. The thing is, he's done more damage to himself by proverbially threatening the very livelihood of a children's institution.

Not a smart campaign move, Mitty ol' boy.

I think it's mountain out of molehill. He used it as a general example, not a platform base. Mitt's campaign has many flaws, but this is a strange one to focus on

[carom]

Originally Posted by Thor

lol wtf Az you are not that crazy right.........

Most of the major funding to PBS is foundations...

I might be totally wrong, and if so, please correct me.

And don't forget viewers like you.

[Yasa]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

You may want to check your math on that.

200 million is 0.01% of 2 trillion.

Whoops! Good call!

[ShaolinFlame]

If PBS needs all this money from the federal government every year, this raises two huge questions:

#1 - Where is all the Tickle-Me-Elmo money going?
#2 - Can we pledge-drive through this?

In all seriosuness though, I invite anybody who claims that PBS is only sponsored by the federal dime and 'Private Foundations' to actually watch some PBS. Charlie Rose and PBS News for example start with a mix of adds from both major corporations and Foundations (many of which are pretty much just partisan political think tanks anyways - where do you think the foundation money comes from?).

Pfizer sponsoring the Charlie Rose Brain Series has got to be the most hilarious by a mile.

After googling to try to find a few more examples of the major corporation commercials I've seen on PBS, I did come across this interesting PBS page on underwriting. Apparently you can buy a 15 second commercial before most major shows on PBS that will only air on a certain affiliate. Who knew?
http://www.wqed.org/about/underwriting_tv.php

[Daradon]

The outrage is pretty funny and over the top but I think it's just another example of how out of touch Romney is and how he won't be able to make any difference because all the things which COULD help the budget (closing loopholes/tax cuts on the rich and corporations, strengthening regulations, possibly raising taxes, cutting the military budget) he won't touch.

Instead he wants to take away some education programing for people who often don't have access to it anywhere else.

Actually maybe the outrage is justified. He's still seeing everything off the reflection of his silver spoon.

[drhu22]

Sorry
Misposted...edited original post

[Flash Walken]

The outrage is NOT over the top.

What is outrageous here, and let's all get really serious and do some actual thinking, is that a politician running for president made his first debate point about cutting funding for public broadcasting.

While many will say "oh this outrage is manufactured" or "uncalled for" or "unnecessary", think about the statement for a good, long while.

First priministerial debate, Stephen Harper walks on stage, and proclaims, "I am in favour of balanced budgets, so I'm going to be cutting the funding for CBC Radio2."

It's punitive, out of touch and symptomatic of the oligarchical policies Romney represents.

Next, he's going to balance the budget by eliminating hot lunches in schools or workplace safety regulations.

[AR_Six]

While that is a good infographic, I think "over the top" refers to the fact that there are much more crucial issues at stake in this election and the amount of time being spent on this is vastly disproportionate to its real importance.

[Devils'Advocate]

BUT I THINK THAT RIGHT THERE IS THE IMPORTANCE!!!

When asked what they are going to cut, the Republicans sort of shuffle their feet and look off into the distance as if they didn't hear the question. Bill Maher refers this to the bad dieting effect.. you want to cut back on your food intake, but nobody wants to touch the meat (defence), potatoes (medicare) or corn (social security)... so they go after the sprig of parsley and say that that is what is causing the problem. When asked how he is going to reduce the deficit he goes after PBS? Oi. The sad part is that with this outrage over PBS funding cuts, imagine the outrage if he wanted to cut something that actually WOULD make a difference to the deficit.

The problem is that in general, Americans, just like everyone in the world, want all of their government services and programs, but they don't want to pay for them.

[Azure]

Cool infographic.

Too bad cutting federal funding has nothing to do with 'saving PBS.' PBS would EASILY exist without federal funding.

Outrage is still stupid and over the top.

What is stupid and over the top is your ridiculous notions that workplace safety regulations are next.