Re: Mitt Romney, PBS

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

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.

Yep. What's funny is the people who don't even realize how many government programs they use.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

Cool infographic.

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

Not true, check the 'cool inforgraphic' for more 'info'.

Outrage is still stupid and over the top.

Ok, repeat pre-existing condition-i mean argument. We've been there several times now.

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

Now you're getting it. Cutting PBS funding is about as ridiculous a notion as cutting workplace safety regulations (and the welfare state that enforces them).

Edit: Hot lunches appear to be fair game.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree. Getting this question answered is important. Which is why I wish they'd just stuck on Mitt until he answered "WHAT DEDUCTIONS AND LOOPHOLES are you going to cut to pay for tax reductions and increased military spending?" He has not. I agree that this is a crucial issue. PBS isn't really.

Originally Posted by Azure

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

While this is true, to be fair, it would likely not exist as it exists now - i.e. it would be unavailable to a lot of people who currently have access to it. Arguably, that is a problem. Consequently, people should, in my view, be against cutting that funding, and should disagree with Romney on this. That said, it is not the decisive point on which anyone should be casting a vote for President.

[Azure]

PBS gets 15% of its budget from federal sources. The station would still exist without federal funding.

Even more strangely, 'Big Bird' exists strictly based on private money. Romney couldn't get rid of him no matter how much he cut funding.

Again, the argument is ridiculous on both sides. .0012% of the federal budget goes to public broadcasters. Romney is an idiot for bringing it up. But people who are outraged should really go check out where PBS gets it money.

[Azure]

This whole debate is exactly what US politics is so screwed up. Romney has openly said he won't cut military spending. Media doesn't care about it. People don't care about it. He mentions cutting PBS funding, and people go bonkers.

[AR_Six]

If your problem is with the things the media chooses to fixate on as issues, well, what else is new. Joe the Plumber, anyone?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

PBS gets 15% of its budget from federal sources. The station would still exist without federal funding.

This is painful.

I'm not even asking you to read a whole paragraph, just read the 8 or so words NEXT to the 15 percent graphic.

[AR_Six]

You guys are talking past each other. Yes, PBS would exist without federal funding - there would still be a PBS. No, certain PBS stations would not be able to operate - many would no longer have access to it.

[Reanimate]

Originally Posted by 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.

Haha, you're joking right?