Should PBS aka Channel 13 in NYC area continue to get government funding?

[Turbo19]

Why does nobody actually pay attention the facts on this? PBS is so far from "government-run" I don't even know where to begin. By that standard Exxon is government run, since they receive massive direct subsidies from the government (more direct than PBS).

 

Truth, not to mention Exxon receives larger sums.

 

Honestly I don't see why this is an issue. PBS will still recieve funding from other sources, so its miniscule viewers will still recieve their programs.

[Phantom909]

Why does nobody actually pay attention the facts on this? PBS is so far from "government-run" I don't even know where to begin. By that standard Exxon is government run, since they receive massive direct subsidies from the government (more direct than PBS).

Truth, not to mention Exxon receives larger sums.

 

Honestly I don't see why this is an issue. PBS will still recieve funding from other sources, so its miniscule viewers will still recieve their programs.

 

you guys are under the misconception that the government cuts a check to the oil companies. the suvsidies are tax breaks. i posted this article a while back, but obviously you guys never read it. its worth reading

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/04/25/the-surprising-reason-that-oil-subsidies-persist-even-liberals-love-them/

 

joe

[R32 3838]

this will cheer you guys up lol:*Warning for Language.*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_7vaGdQ3xw&feature=related

[Phantom909]

this will cheer you guys up lol:

 

 

wow, so much class on display in this video you shpouldve put a warning for language before you put this up

 

joe

[kentsfield]

Ay yay yay... What I'm saying is we should not be borrowing more monies from China for anything, period. If we can't afford to pay for something then we don't have it. Obama was supposed to get spending under control after Bush went on a spending spree and he was just as bad. We need fiscal responsibility in this country. I'm sure you don't spend what you don't have and it shouldn't be any different with our government.

 

As far as sports stadiums go, not all of them are publically funded and like I said, they are not just used solely for sports. The city decides to have a new stadium in their city based on what they are getting out of it and what the city's needs are, so that means that they weigh the financial investment in terms of their return for having taxpayer dollars used for the stadium.

 

The stadium allows them to have all sorts of events that brings in monies and creates jobs, which creates tax revenues for the city.

 

You can paraphrase Mitt romney all you like but he is far worse than Obama with spending. Mitt supports keeping military spending at an elevated rate even after afghanistan is out of the picture. 600 billion dollars every year and none of it can be touched without whines and groans. Trying to build a 600 ship navy by borrowing chinese money to fight china is off the wall illogical. How is it we are paying over 2 trillion for the F35 program while the russians get away with a mere 10 billion dollars to build the similar PAK-FA? The japanese have the gall to cut their defense spending because they know they can just rely on us to be their meatshield. So while we have crumbling infrastructure the japanese are yucking it up in Shinkansen trains. Outside medicare defense and social security there is only 400 billion left to cut. You could cut all of those programs and we would still have a deficit. Anyone paying more than just giving empty to lip service to fiscal discipline would focus on those first and foremost. But we all know what the most likely outcome is. Wait until its a crisis and we end up having to print money to survive which is absolutely ridiculous for the richest country in the world to undertake.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

You can paraphrase Mitt romney all you like but he is far worse than Obama with spending. Mitt supports keeping military spending at an elevated rate even after afghanistan is out of the picture. 600 billion dollars every year and none of it can be touched without whines and groans. Trying to build a 600 ship navy by borrowing chinese money to fight china is off the wall illogical. How is it we are paying over 2 trillion for the F35 program while the russians get away with a mere 10 billion dollars to build the similar PAK-FA? The japanese have the gall to cut their defense spending because they know they can just rely on us to be their meatshield. So while we have crumbling infrastructure the japanese are yucking it up in Shinkansen trains. Outside medicare defense and social security there is only 400 billion left to cut. You could cut all of those programs and we would still have a deficit. Anyone paying more than just giving empty to lip service to fiscal discipline would focus on those first and foremost. But we all know what the most likely outcome is. Wait until its a crisis and we end up having to print money to survive which is absolutely ridiculous for the richest country in the world to undertake.

 

 

Sorry to tell you this but that's the price you have to pay to be the richest country in the world. We didn't just become #1 just because. Being a super power means you have to spend money in defense to protect your interests both at home and abroad and with the events of 9/11 we can no longer be relaxed on spending on defense. It's one of those necessary evils.

[Kamen Rider]

if it gets rid of those god aweful telethons, I'm all for it.

[kentsfield]

Sorry to tell you this but that's the price you have to pay to be the richest country in the world. We didn't just become #1 just because. Being a super power means you have to spend money in defense to protect your interests both at home and abroad and with the events of 9/11 we can no longer be relaxed on spending on defense. It's one of those necessary evils.

 

American dominance came from being a soft economic power. What happened to the militarist dictatorships of ww2 ? they got rolled into the ground. All the high war technology of the germans did nothing against the suffocating power of the american supply chain. Underwriting the allied side while the rest of the industrial world destroyed themselves was why we profited immensely off the war. Expanding the navy is solely ego waving with the chinese with their money. All this when they lack even a credible regional navy. As for 9/11 no amount of direct military spending could defeat tribal arabs. They just don't care about tech superiority. At the very least the pentagon could be far more cooperative in accounting for its various expenses instead of stonewalling.

[Trainmaster5]

American dominance came from being a soft economic power. What happened to the militarist dictatorships of ww2 ? they got rolled into the ground. All the high war technology of the germans did nothing against the suffocating power of the american supply chain. Underwriting the allied side while the rest of the industrial world destroyed themselves was why we profited immensely off the war. Expanding the navy is solely ego waving with the chinese with their money. All this when they lack even a credible regional navy. As for 9/11 no amount of direct military spending could defeat tribal arabs. They just don't care about tech superiority. At the very least the pentagon could be far more cooperative in accounting for its various expenses instead of stonewalling.

 

Although the thread was supposedly about PBS/WNET you brought up a very good point (which you should continue in the election thread) about WWII and about expanding the US Navy. It's not PBS that's bankrupting the American economy by any means. The POTUS who bankrupted the USSR and led us to the point of borrowing all this Chinese money also wanted a 600 ship navy. You could look it up. BTW one would have to be 1- incredibly ignorant, or 2-incredibly disingenous ( aka a flat out liar ) to think that funding/not funding PBS is going to solve our economic woes. Why not cut farm, methanol,and transportation subsidies if we're really serious about reducing debt ? I've seen hypocrisy before but never have I seen so many people spout so much BS as I've seen in the past few election cycles. It seems the Ugly American has been replaced by the Ignorant American lately. Pity. Carry on.

[Quill Depot]

It'll lower the deficit, it can go.

[Shortline Bus]

Although the thread was supposedly about PBS/WNET you brought up a very good point (which you should continue in the election thread) about WWII and about expanding the US Navy. It's not PBS that's bankrupting the American economy by any means. The POTUS who bankrupted the USSR and led us to the point of borrowing all this Chinese money also wanted a 600 ship navy. You could look it up. BTW one would have to be 1- incredibly ignorant, or 2-incredibly disingenous ( aka a flat out liar ) to think that funding/not funding PBS is going to solve our economic woes. Why not cut farm, methanol,and transportation subsidies if we're really serious about reducing debt ? I've seen hypocrisy before but never have I seen so many people spout so much BS as I've seen in the past few election cycles. It seems the Ugly American has been replaced by the Ignorant American lately. Pity. Carry on.

 

 

Well said. Plus as the PBS CEO said in video clip i posted earlier, places in rural America i.e mississippi and west virginia with tons of poorer people and families would lose access to PBS. And some cant afford cable or the internet either. Matter of fact in some places of rural america there lack of high speed internet access.

 

So if PBS funding is gone what the replacement guys?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Although the thread was supposedly about PBS/WNET you brought up a very good point (which you should continue in the election thread) about WWII and about expanding the US Navy. It's not PBS that's bankrupting the American economy by any means. The POTUS who bankrupted the USSR and led us to the point of borrowing all this Chinese money also wanted a 600 ship navy. You could look it up. BTW one would have to be 1- incredibly ignorant, or 2-incredibly disingenous ( aka a flat out liar ) to think that funding/not funding PBS is going to solve our economic woes. Why not cut farm, methanol,and transportation subsidies if we're really serious about reducing debt ? I've seen hypocrisy before but never have I seen so many people spout so much BS as I've seen in the past few election cycles. It seems the Ugly American has been replaced by the Ignorant American lately. Pity. Carry on.

 

 

One would indeed have to be completely ignorant to think that cutting PBS funding will solve our economic problems. On the same token, one would also have to incredibly reckless to BORROW MONEY FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY to pay for television funding when that station can RAISE THE FUNDS THEMSELVES! That's been my point the entire time. If the money is there, then sure give it to them, but we should not be going into further debt to fund them when they can get the monies from a legitimate source. PBS is simply an example of a number of things that we cannot keep borrowing monies for to pay for and $400 million here for this and $500 million there for that DOES add up. That's the point that everyone keeps trying to dismiss.

 

The government has an obligation to first and foremost assure that its citizens have JOBS, not worry about PBS for crying out loud. As I said before, I think plenty of Americans would much rather more funding go to helping to put Americans back to work than funding a station that quite frankly can get the funding by asking for donations. I just don't understand where in the world folks' priorities are???

 

23 million Americans out of work and we're more concerned about PBS... Very troubling.

[Urbanfortitude]

Yeah that's troubling. Yet nothing said about the 500 extra channels on a cable box that all show the same kinda shit. Mindless at that. How many channels does HBO and Showtime have for instance? Oh and I don't remember who it was that said Public TV is a luxury but that's a funny little thing to say considering how many people pay out their asses monthly for premium cable channels they probably don't even watch. Wonder how many of them have the time to watch them if they have jobs.

[Trainmaster5]

One would indeed have to be completely ignorant to think that cutting PBS funding will solve our economic problems. On the same token, one would also have to incredibly reckless to BORROW MONEY FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY to pay for television funding when that station can RAISE THE FUNDS THEMSELVES! That's been my point the entire time. If the money is there, then sure give it to them, but we should not be going into further debt to fund them when they can get the monies from a legitimate source. PBS is simply an example of a number of things that we cannot keep borrowing monies for to pay for and $400 million here for this and $500 million there for that DOES add up. That's the point that everyone keeps trying to dismiss.

 

The government has an obligation to first and foremost assure that its citizens have JOBS, not worry about PBS for crying out loud. As I said before, I think plenty of Americans would much rather more funding go to helping to put Americans back to work than funding a station that quite frankly can get the funding by asking for donations. I just don't understand where in the world folks' priorities are???

 

23 million Americans out of work and we're more concerned about PBS... Very troubling.

 

Whether you've noticed it or not I agree with your last line(s). My point is the government, meaning Congress, has no interest in those unemployed Americans except at election time.Did they pass a JOBS bill ? They fought over extending unemployment. They try to screw the veterans all the time. Whether you love or hate Obama, or even John McCain if the roles were reversed, unless the tax codes are revised, loopholes eliminated, most deductions removed, and tax revenue increased, while extraneous programs are cut back, it is impossible to pay off our national debt. To have major party candidates talk about lowering taxes while maintaining some popular programs is total stupidity IMO and amounts to pandering at best. Listening to the spin from both major parties it seems it's only a matter of which one will be first to call in the Chinese interior decorators to measure the White House and the Capitol for drapes. IMO the election boils down to who has the most palatable financial program to turn the country around. I think President Clinton said it best. Arithmetic. Run the numbers correctly, save the country from more debt, start paying down today's bills and don't focus so much on Big Bird and Elmo. Someone will step up for them The Me Generation only cares about themselves, not their kids or anybody elses as far as I can see. Maybe this should be put in the elections thread but I think it's all connected . Just my opinion. Carry on.

[Grand Concourse]

Yeah that's troubling. Yet nothing said about the 500 extra channels on a cable box that all show the same kinda shit. Mindless at that. How many channels does HBO and Showtime have for instance? Oh and I don't remember who it was that said Public TV is a luxury but that's a funny little thing to say considering how many people pay out their asses monthly for premium cable channels they probably don't even watch. Wonder how many of them have the time to watch them if they have jobs.

 

Which is why some years back, I was all for the a la cart type channel selection thing. I would easily drop a bunch of channels like ESPN, almost all the MTV-VH1 related shit. I have like 20 favorite channels and that's it. I don't need 200 channels + premiums.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Which is why some years back, I was all for the a la cart type channel selection thing. I would easily drop a bunch of channels like ESPN, almost all the MTV-VH1 related shit. I have like 20 favorite channels and that's it. I don't need 200 channels + premiums.

 

And the movie channels these days... They gave them to me for free and I still didn't watch them. All I watch for movies usually is IFC which puts on good Independent and International movies from time to time.

[Grand Concourse]

Yeah, the current deal with Verizon allows me to have all the premiums for free for 2 years. The main times I watch any of them is if I don't want to look for an old movie to watch or it's one of the newer movies I saw and waited at least a year to watch on tv. Thank god for the DVR, I just select the program and watch the show/movie later. But once the deal ends, I am not keeping any of them. If I really want a movie, I'll just get the dvd.

[Shortline Bus]

Which is why some years back, I was all for the a la cart type channel selection thing. I would easily drop a bunch of channels like ESPN, almost all the MTV-VH1 related shit. I have like 20 favorite channels and that's it. I don't need 200 channels + premiums.

 

 

Cable TV should be cheaper than $100-plus a month. If "basic cable" was say $25 a month, 99% of families would jump for it and could be the source of funding for PBS. Sort of how CSPAN is paid for as a public service. If Comcast/NBC dont have to pay hundred of millions since Obama took office, that alone would pay the PBS budget for a year. Just throwing it out there.

[Urbanfortitude]

Whether you've noticed it or not I agree with your last line(s). My point is the government, meaning Congress, has no interest in those unemployed Americans except at election time.Did they pass a JOBS bill ? They fought over extending unemployment. They try to screw the veterans all the time. Whether you love or hate Obama, or even John McCain if the roles were reversed, unless the tax codes are revised, loopholes eliminated, most deductions removed, and tax revenue increased, while extraneous programs are cut back, it is impossible to pay off our national debt. To have major party candidates talk about lowering taxes while maintaining some popular programs is total stupidity IMO and amounts to pandering at best. Listening to the spin from both major parties it seems it's only a matter of which one will be first to call in the Chinese interior decorators to measure the White House and the Capitol for drapes. IMO the election boils down to who has the most palatable financial program to turn the country around. I think President Clinton said it best. Arithmetic. Run the numbers correctly, save the country from more debt, start paying down today's bills and don't focus so much on Big Bird and Elmo. Someone will step up for them The Me Generation only cares about themselves, not their kids or anybody elses as far as I can see. Maybe this should be put in the elections thread but I think it's all connected . Just my opinion. Carry on.

 

 

I'm glad to see you're still around. I've been away for a couple months and got curious about the forums. Once again I see you're still striking the perfect record on making good points. I agree with you on all counts. Keep posting your opinion.

[Shortline Bus]

Guys heard of the Million Man, Million Moms, etc. marches of Washington DC in last 20 years? Now add in (no joke!) the Million Muppet March" for Sat. 11/3/12 to protest the proposed cuts to PBS.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/13/million-muppet-march-romney-pbs-big-bird_n_1962831.html

[Turbo19]

SMFH. People need to get their priorities in order.

[Shortline Bus]

SMFH. People need to get their priorities in order.

 

 

Hey this is America. That our right lol even if you dont like elmo, ernie and big bird lol.

[Turbo19]

Hey this is America. That our right lol even if you dont like elmo, ernie and big bird lol.

 

But to compare this in importance to the Million Man March, in my opinion is a disgrace.

[Shortline Bus]

But to compare this in importance to the Million Man March, in my opinion is a disgrace.

 

 

I never did. That article did. Seems like you dislike my jokes on those Muppet marchers lol Turbo. Relax. I am not that bad.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

OMG... Are these people serious??