Cut government funding of PBS????

[MrPrena]

My kid loves pbs for kids, but I agree with cutting majority of the funding from government.

[Ronin13]

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...

[lowbeyond]

I vote for

[mahkcod]

Yes Sir

[hollohas]

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.

[Ronin13]

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]

What's so bad about PBS being privately funded from charity and other donations?

Nothing at all.

[BREATHER]

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]

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]

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)