View Full Version : Cut government funding of PBS????
DD977GM2
10-09-2012, 15:20
What is your stance?
I say we can put the money to better use.
There are to many channels right now to pick from that have the same content
and are not subsidised by the government.
I watch PBS and enjoy their programming, but like unions...I feel it has outlived its usefulness.
bye bye big bird (unless those fund drives get alot larger)
ronaldrwl
10-09-2012, 15:24
This is one area I 'think' I agree with Librarians. The government should completely out of crap like this.
Teufelhund
10-09-2012, 15:31
This is one area I 'think' I agree with Librarians. The government should completely out of crap like this.
I agree with the librarians as well! Ban the internet so people will check out books! Wait. . . what were we talking about?
Yes, cut funding to anything and everything not within the federal government's authority to support. All of these things are very clearly spelled out in the Constitution. If it isn't a power given to you, you do not have the authority to assume it.
The left will claim that Romney wants to cut soo much, it's in actuality $445 Million. That's only 12% of their funding [1 (http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-romney-will-save-by-killing-big-bird-2012-10)]. Looks like PBS can still operate without that government cheese... They'll just have to rely on other means of funding, or do what anyone does when they hit hard economic times- budget better. I do like Frontline, but that's about all I watch from PBS (I don't even watch the channel- I stream Frontline in from their website or Netflix). I don't understand what the BFD is... It's not like PBS is the cornerstone to America's television, their viewership for an entire year doesn't touch last year's Super Bowl (76 million vs 111 million). Take that as you may, but I don't think PBS is going to go anywhere if Romney cuts off their subsidy.
Reason 1: Government should not be involved in funding any media source.
Reason 2: Setting priorities does not include PBS, Arts, and the plethora of BS being funded today. If people desire these activities, they should be funded through private donations.
If you like PBS then donate.
I shouldn't be forced to pay for your viewing habits.
Reason 1: Government should not be involved in funding any media source.
Reason 2: Setting priorities does not include PBS, Arts, and the plethora of BS being funded today. If people desire these activities, they should be funded through private donations.
YEP!
The government has no business being involved with that. Period.
If you like PBS then donate.
I shouldn't be forced to pay for your viewing habits.
NPR is right there with it, same 10-15% of budget from feds. the difference to me being I like NPR and so they get some of my cash.
crashdown
10-09-2012, 15:54
They can always just get money by running advertisements like every other channel.
Oh PBS won't go away if they lose their ill-gotten government funding. PBS makes plenty of dough selling Elmo dolls and all their other crap.
My stance is that government should not be funding things like PBS (especially in today's market), but it is too much of a non-issue to be talking about or using as campaign fodder.
PBS= Pretty Boring Shit
Seriously, I don't know anyone between the ages of 8 and 65 that watches PBS on any regular basis. Back in the days of Nova and Carl Sagan, it might have been different. Regardless, Public Television is supported nowadays is supported by corporate sponsors, just like regular television, with the exception of not having to be run like a business due to the additional government subsidy.
Off with their heads!
http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/thefw.com/files/2011/11/sesame-street.jpg
HBARleatherneck
10-09-2012, 16:48
we watch Nature, Nova, This Old House, Home Time, Americas test Kitchen, Antiques Roadshow, Rick Steves Europe (now, non stop islamic countries), Globe Trekker, etc.
Would I pay for it? no. I would NOT pay for ANY television programing. I dont think US taxpayers should pay for almost anything more than the very basics to keep the country running. I think state and local governments should pay for what they want. That way you move to where suits you.
PBS does have commercials, mostly between programs. They are supposed to have commercials throughout some programs.
the kids watch Clifford and Bob the Builder and we all watch Celtic Woman.
What??? Where else am I going to get my Celtic Woman fix?
ChadAmberg
10-09-2012, 17:00
PBS obviously does not need the money according to Liberals. They're the "Corporation for Public Broadcasting" and as a corporation, they're obviously evil and rich.
Sharpienads
10-09-2012, 17:17
IMHO, this shouldn't even be an issue. Where in the constitution does it give congress the authority to give money to any media outlet? Especially NPR. Obviously left leaning. If PBS and Big Bird are so popular, I'm sure they can find a way to stay solvent.
any sane person should recognize the danger of having the government back ANY media outlets. NPR and PBS included. very dangerous road to travel.
Teufelhund
10-09-2012, 17:21
It is a non-issue. It's also despicable how the Obama campaign has run with this.
Sesame Street urges Obama campaign to drop Big Bird ad (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19887220)
Delfuego
10-09-2012, 17:27
You guy are just slurping up this spoon fed political bullshit. You really think PBS funding is an important issue?
"* PBS stated in its press release on Thursday that government funding to PBS entails just "one one-hundredth of one percent" of the annual federal budget, and quoted a 2011 poll by Hart Research and American Viewpoint that stated that 69 percent of Americans oppose cutting government funding to PBS. "
Boy that will solve all our problems. Wake up this is just another "wedge issue" to get people arguing about. We have a lot bigger fish to fry.
If you like PBS then donate.
I shouldn't be forced to pay for your viewing habits.
I feel the same way about public school: Got kids = YOU pay to educate them. I don't have kids and don't feel like I should have to pay taxes to cover schooling the neighbors rug rats.
I feel the same way about public school: Got kids = YOU pay to educate them. I don't have kids and don't feel like I should have to pay taxes to cover schooling the neighbors rug rats.
This one is different.
The laws and institutions in this country are built assuming you are going to have children, because most do.
I wont have children but I wont bitch 'too much' about paying for schools. there is some good to them and those little rugrats are going to have to keep the country running when I retire.
Should the bulk cost be carried by the parents, yeah, but feel free to look at the lady who glued her kids hands to the wall. She isn't paying a damn thing. Those are 5 kids that are going to be a burden to everyone their entire lives. I'll pay the taxes and bitch a little bit for the (tiny) chance that maybe one of them will get it in school & not be a burden. I'd also vote for anyone who would sterilize her.
That said, Vote no on 3A. An increase just passed 4 damn years ago.
Sharpienads
10-09-2012, 18:02
You guy are just slurping up this spoon fed political bullshit. You really think PBS funding is an important issue?
"* PBS stated in its press release on Thursday that government funding to PBS entails just "one one-hundredth of one percent" of the annual federal budget, and quoted a 2011 poll by Hart Research and American Viewpoint that stated that 69 percent of Americans oppose cutting government funding to PBS. "
Boy that will solve all our problems. Wake up this is just another "wedge issue" to get people arguing about. We have a lot bigger fish to fry.
Yes. It is an extremely important issue. It's the principle. I don't care how much money it is.
Yes. It is an extremely important issue. It's the principle. I don't care how much money it is.
correct. yes, we need to make big cuts all over the place to fix the budget, but one reason the budget is so messed up is because our government spends money on everything, including stuff they have no business spending money on. it is certainly the principle.
You guy are just slurping up this spoon fed political bullshit. You really think PBS funding is an important issue?
"* PBS stated in its press release on Thursday that government funding to PBS entails just "one one-hundredth of one percent" of the annual federal budget, and quoted a 2011 poll by Hart Research and American Viewpoint that stated that 69 percent of Americans oppose cutting government funding to PBS. "
Boy that will solve all our problems. Wake up this is just another "wedge issue" to get people arguing about. We have a lot bigger fish to fry.
Obviously cutting PBS funding is not going to solve our nations financial issues, if you have half a brain you know that. It's the principle we're talking about. In reality, cutting govt. funding to PBS is .012% of the Natl. budget. I agree, it's a small portion. However, if you make similar cuts to a variety of programs, say 200 programs total, you have now cut 2.4% off the natl. budget. This may seem like a small number. But over ten or twenty years this adds up to trillions in savings. Unfortunately, most people like you will just read .012% and disregard it as a waste of time.
Yes. It is an extremely important issue. It's the principle. I don't care how much money it is.
Thank you.
Michael Brown is talking about this topic right now on 630. I cannot believe the people who think this spending is OK but defense spending is not.
Defense spending is constitutional because the federal government has been charged with the defense of the nation.
Allocating taxpayer funds for public TV is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The government has no business doing it. Same with the environment, education, land, healthcare, you name it.
I saw an interesting argument that said that Discovery Channel used to be partly funded by the government. It ran educational shows. It's all privatized now, and look at the lineup...
http://i.imgur.com/NedIh.png
TEAMRICO
10-09-2012, 18:46
I'm entitled to gettin me some thick Celtic Gals and you touch my Bob Ross and his happy trees I'm gona cry racism!!!
Who am I kidding, cut em.
you should learn to look at the bigger picture and not just what is put in front of you. your type of thinking is a major reason our government blows money on all sorts of useless things, even against the constitution, and we sit here and twiddle our thumbs.
You guy are just slurping up this spoon fed political bullshit. You really think PBS funding is an important issue?
"* PBS stated in its press release on Thursday that government funding to PBS entails just "one one-hundredth of one percent" of the annual federal budget, and quoted a 2011 poll by Hart Research and American Viewpoint that stated that 69 percent of Americans oppose cutting government funding to PBS. "
Boy that will solve all our problems. Wake up this is just another "wedge issue" to get people arguing about. We have a lot bigger fish to fry.
I feel the same way about public school: Got kids = YOU pay to educate them. I don't have kids and don't feel like I should have to pay taxes to cover schooling the neighbors rug rats.
Agreed!
Delfuego
10-09-2012, 19:08
The only reason people are talking about is Mitten's debate and Fox news.
Think for yourself people...
Scanker19
10-09-2012, 19:09
I'd rather pay for PBS than for soldiers to take one bite out of their food and then toss it in the trash.
I swear if Romney denounced the NRA tomorrow half of you that support it wouldn't any more. Seriously how many of you knew or cared about gov funding of PBS before the debate?
I'm surprised this is even an issue.
I REALLY can't believe a lot is against public education, because it's not in the constitution. How about road funds, we don't need those right?
This election is doing exactly what it should be doing dividing us on everything imaginable. We're fighting and paying for an un-winable war and people are crying about PBS?
Sharpienads
10-09-2012, 19:21
I'd rather pay for PBS than for soldiers to take one bite out of their food and then toss it in the trash.
I swear if Romney denounced the NRA tomorrow half of you that support it wouldn't any more. Seriously how many of you knew or cared about gov funding of PBS before the debate?
I'm surprised this is even an issue.
I REALLY can't believe a lot is against public education, because it's not in the constitution. How about road funds, we don't need those right?
This election is doing exactly what it should be doing dividing us on everything imaginable. We're fighting and paying for an un-winable war and people are crying about PBS?
Well if Joe didn't make such sh!tty food, maybe we would make happy plates. [Tooth]
I can't believe anybody would be for government spending that isn't authorized by the Constitution. Why should the federal government pay for the roads in CO? Or in any state?
I do agree with your point on war, though. Not so much that it's unwinnable, but that it's not the proper application of our military.
So you mean to tell me that there aren't enough royalties from Tickle Me Elmos for them to be self sufficient? Should have a better business model.
They shouldn't be subsidized at all.
The only reason people are talking about is Mitten's debate and Fox news.
Think for yourself people...
people being against npr and pbs funding has been around for a LOOOOOOONG time, it isn't new, there just hasn't been a politician against it openly.
You guy are just slurping up this spoon fed political bullshit. You really think PBS funding is an important issue?
"* PBS stated in its press release on Thursday that government funding to PBS entails just "one one-hundredth of one percent" of the annual federal budget, and quoted a 2011 poll by Hart Research and American Viewpoint that stated that 69 percent of Americans oppose cutting government funding to PBS. "
Boy that will solve all our problems. Wake up this is just another "wedge issue" to get people arguing about. We have a lot bigger fish to fry.
This is what I was trying to say. Of course the principle is important, but even the mention of this during a political race just serves to distract from more pressing issues. Same with gay marriage and abortion.
You guy are just slurping up this spoon fed political bullshit. You really think PBS funding is an important issue?
"* PBS stated in its press release on Thursday that government funding to PBS entails just "one one-hundredth of one percent" of the annual federal budget, and quoted a 2011 poll by Hart Research and American Viewpoint that stated that 69 percent of Americans oppose cutting government funding to PBS. "
Boy that will solve all our problems. Wake up this is just another "wedge issue" to get people arguing about. We have a lot bigger fish to fry.
every little bit counts, and you have to start somewhere.
Jarred the subway guy didn't lose all that weight by cutting his leg off. It's going to have to come off a bit at a time if we want to survive.
JohnnyEgo
10-09-2012, 21:10
PBS != CPB.
PBS and NPR would be just fine without government funding. The local stations that serve remote and rural areas, however, would not be. Most of them depend on CPB grants, which are, in essence, taxpayer grants.
I've listened to NPR for many years, and in general, I like it. Having a two year old means I also spend a lot of time on PBS. Because I live in a reasonably populous area, all a reduction in funding would really mean is more 'underwriting' and 'sponsorship' announcements, which are not much removed from being commercials anyways.
I don't much care about the argument, quite frankly. I don't care about gay marriage, flag burning, prayer in school, or a host of other ancillary issues for that matter. I do care that we have sold our soul to China for cheap TVs and assorted Walmart junk. I do care that the size and scope of government have grown by leaps and bounds in successive Republican and Democratic administrations. But rhetoric aside, these are the hard problems to solve, so instead I get politicians fighting over PBS.
My kid loves pbs for kids, but I agree with cutting majority of the funding from government.
You guy are just slurping up this spoon fed political bullshit. You really think PBS funding is an important issue?
"* PBS stated in its press release on Thursday that government funding to PBS entails just "one one-hundredth of one percent" of the annual federal budget, and quoted a 2011 poll by Hart Research and American Viewpoint that stated that 69 percent of Americans oppose cutting government funding to PBS. "
Boy that will solve all our problems. Wake up this is just another "wedge issue" to get people arguing about. We have a lot bigger fish to fry.
every little bit counts, and you have to start somewhere.
Jarred the subway guy didn't lose all that weight by cutting his leg off. It's going to have to come off a bit at a time if we want to survive.
^Someone who gets it! It's not about just PBS- he said he's going to cut anything we have to borrow money to pay for that we don't need! PBS was just a single example- "Oh but it's less than 1% of the federal budget!" Yeah but when you combine multiple things the federal budget pays for that it shouldn't it adds up... [Beer]
lowbeyond
10-10-2012, 11:03
I vote for
http://2media.nowpublic.net/images//d5/e1/d5e1454d882ce482ac793fe24d5461a5.jpg
hollohas
10-10-2012, 12:52
The only reason people are talking about is Mitten's debate and Fox news.
Think for yourself people...
The Obama campaign video featuring Big Bird doesn't count?
Even if the PBS funding from the government is a small percentage, it does matter. The feds shouldn't be spending tax dollars on things like that. Cut a few hundred of similar "small percentage" federally funded programs and that will put a dent in our deficit.
Sesame Street Workshop themselves said most of their funding comes from merchandise profits. They won't get hurt losing a tiny amount of funding from the government and nether will any of the other PBS programs that get support from merchandise and donations.
Unfortunately Mitt used PBS and Sesame Street as an example of ONE program he would cut funding for and the media (and Obama) has picked up on that single example and ran with it to create a distraction. In reality there are likely thousands of other federally funded programs that could just as easily be cut and that's the important issue.
The Obama campaign video featuring Big Bird doesn't count?
Even if the PBS funding from the government is a small percentage, it does matter. The feds shouldn't be spending tax dollars on things like that. Cut a few hundred of similar "small percentage" federally funded programs and that will put a dent in our deficit.
Sesame Street Workshop themselves said most of their funding comes from merchandise profits. They won't get hurt losing a tiny amount of funding from the government and nether will any of the other PBS programs that get support from merchandise and donations.
Unfortunately Mitt used PBS and Sesame Street as an example of ONE program he would cut funding for and the media (and Obama) has picked up on that single example and ran with it to create a distraction. In reality there are likely thousands of other federally funded programs that could just as easily be cut and that's the important issue.
I just read- and now I can't find the link (on my phone) that Frontline is funded by about 2% of the subsidy and the rest is funded by things like the Park Foundation and other private donations. What's so bad about PBS being privately funded from charity and other donations?
hollohas
10-10-2012, 14:39
What's so bad about PBS being privately funded from charity and other donations?
Nothing at all.
BREATHER
10-10-2012, 17:44
I listen to NPR regularly. Like anything else that takes gubment mooney, they slant to what the gubment want them to say and how to say it. Way to many leanings instead of str8 reporting. Listen to the news very closely and you will hear the slant.
Sharpienads
10-10-2012, 19:02
PBS != CPB.
PBS and NPR would be just fine without government funding. The local stations that serve remote and rural areas, however, would not be. Most of them depend on CPB grants, which are, in essence, taxpayer grants.
I've listened to NPR for many years, and in general, I like it. Having a two year old means I also spend a lot of time on PBS. Because I live in a reasonably populous area, all a reduction in funding would really mean is more 'underwriting' and 'sponsorship' announcements, which are not much removed from being commercials anyways.
I don't much care about the argument, quite frankly. I don't care about gay marriage, flag burning, prayer in school, or a host of other ancillary issues for that matter. I do care that we have sold our soul to China for cheap TVs and assorted Walmart junk. I do care that the size and scope of government have grown by leaps and bounds in successive Republican and Democratic administrations. But rhetoric aside, these are the hard problems to solve, so instead I get politicians fighting over PBS.
You basically just said you're concerned about the overreach of government, but not about the overreach of government. How is the government funding a media outlet not an overreach? The amount of money may be small, but it's the principle of the matter.
Sharpienads
10-10-2012, 19:05
I listen to NPR regularly. Like anything else that takes gubment mooney, they slant to what the gubment want them to say and how to say it. Way to many leanings instead of str8 reporting. Listen to the news very closely and you will hear the slant.
You don't have to listen very close to hear the slant. Not only that, but I like to listen conservative talk radio. And, I pay for it on XM Radio. And, the guys I listen to pay taxes, part of which fund their competition on NPR. How is that fair? (The question isn't really directed at you, just a general question)
Zundfolge
10-10-2012, 19:34
A government-supported artist is an incompetent whore.
-Robert Heinlein
The federal government has no reason to be supporting PBS or NPR, both could survive quite well on private donations and if they couldn't than there aren't enough people that want them and they should go out of business.
No, defunding these two entities wouldn't balance the budget, but as a part of a much MUCH larger spending cutting plan they should go (along with the National Endowment for the Arts, Department of Education and at least a dozen other Federal agencies. If there is a legitimate need for the "services" they provide either state governments or private enterprise will step up and fill those needs).
JohnnyEgo
10-10-2012, 20:05
You basically just said you're concerned about the overreach of government, but not about the overreach of government. How is the government funding a media outlet not an overreach? The amount of money may be small, but it's the principle of the matter.
If you are familiar with the concept of media access doctrine, once upon a time there was limited spectrum available, and the government felt it had an obligation to marshal this limited resource for the benefit of the public over the individual right of free speech. I view this obligation as being no longer pertinent in the age of the internet and 600 cable channels. So we are in agreement that it is an over-reach. However, I also view it as being a much smaller issue then, say, the creation of the TSA and it's $8.1 billion dollar budget. Or the bailing out of 2/3 of the US auto industry. Or TARP. I am more pragmatic than principled, I suppose. I see the whole argument over funding for PBS as a conveniently timed red herring rather than discussing more substantive issues.
Sharpienads
10-10-2012, 20:24
If you are familiar with the concept of media access doctrine, once upon a time there was limited spectrum available, and the government felt it had an obligation to marshal this limited resource for the benefit of the public over the individual right of free speech. I view this obligation as being no longer pertinent in the age of the internet and 600 cable channels. So we are in agreement that it is an over-reach. However, I also view it as being a much smaller issue then, say, the creation of the TSA and it's $8.1 billion dollar budget. Or the bailing out of 2/3 of the US auto industry. Or TARP. I am more pragmatic than principled, I suppose. I see the whole argument over funding for PBS as a conveniently timed red herring rather than discussing more substantive issues.
I am not familiar with the concept of media access doctrine. And I agree that it might be a smaller issue than say the TSA (f*ck the TSA). It might be conveniently timed, and I think there is an argument for that. But I would rather a politician bring it up, convenient or not, than not address the issue at all.
Troublco
10-11-2012, 07:56
A government-supported artist is an incompetent whore.
-Robert Heinlein
The federal government has no reason to be supporting PBS or NPR, both could survive quite well on private donations and if they couldn't than there aren't enough people that want them and they should go out of business.
No, defunding these two entities wouldn't balance the budget, but as a part of a much MUCH larger spending cutting plan they should go (along with the National Endowment for the Arts, Department of Education and at least a dozen other Federal agencies. If there is a legitimate need for the "services" they provide either state governments or private enterprise will step up and fill those needs).
This. (I've always been a Heinlein fan, too) I wish we had a smiley chopping something with a big cleaver...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.