Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I watched what Romney said, live. I don't need to see what some one else "thinks" he said.
What part about looking at every program and determining if it is worth borrowing from China to pay for it, don't you understand?
Don't YOU understand that you're putting words in Romney's mouth? He didn't say he was going to "look at every program and determine it's worth." He wasn't even close to saying that in the debate. His exact words were:
"I'm sorry Jim, I'm gonna stop the subsidy to PBS. I like PBS, I love Big Bird, I actually like you too, but I'm going to stop borrowing money from China to pay for things we don't need."
The Republicans have been gunning for PBS for years and our current budget problems are just an excuse. If Romney was serious about reducing the budget why is he ignoring the fact that that PBS's yearly funding from the federal government equals 6 hours of funding to the military complex. Cutting funding to PBS amounts to treating a heart attack with a band aid. Romney's little rehearsed zinger about Big Bird is biting him in the butt. Sorry if the truth hurts.
It isn't just about Sesame Street. It's about keeping a free broadcasting source that is available to every single person in the country, that can be used in case of emergencies---be it natural disasters, declarations of war, or terrorist attacks. A broadcasting source that when not needed for emergencies can also maintain a high level of free educational programs and news for adults and for children who don't have access to daycare and early childhood learning. It's about having a broadcasting source that doesn't have to base their broadcasting schedule on what products will sponsor and sell their wares. Cable can't do all that because cable isn't free and it isn't available in all markets like PBS.
Don't YOU understand that you're putting words in Romney's mouth? He didn't say he was going to "look at every program and determine it's worth." He wasn't even close to saying that in the debate. His exact words were:
"I'm sorry Jim, I'm gonna stop the subsidy to PBS. I like PBS, I love Big Bird, I actually like you too, but I'm going to stop borrowing money from China to pay for things we don't need."
The Republicans have been gunning for PBS for years and our current budget problems are just an excuse. If Romney was serious about reducing the budget why is he ignoring the fact that that PBS's yearly funding from the federal government equals 6 hours of funding to the military complex. Cutting funding to PBS amounts to treating a heart attack with a band aid. Romney's little rehearsed zinger about Big Bird is biting him in the butt. Sorry if the truth hurts.
It isn't just about Sesame Street. It's about keeping a free broadcasting source that is available to every single person in the country, that can be used in case of emergencies---be it natural disasters, declarations of war, or terrorist attacks. A broadcasting source that when not needed for emergencies can also maintain a high level of free educational programs and news for adults and for children who don't have access to daycare and early childhood learning. It's about having a broadcasting source that doesn't have to base their broadcasting schedule on what products will sponsor and sell their wares. Cable can't do all that because cable isn't free and it isn't available in all markets like PBS.
Not to mention, investing in PBS is investment in the cultural and educational infrastructure of this country.
Is it worth borrowing from China to fund PBS? Actually, yes. More so than borrowing to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, or to fund unfunded Republican quagmired wars, that's for damn sure.
Don't YOU understand that you're putting words in Romney's mouth? He didn't say he was going to "look at every program and determine it's worth." He wasn't even close to saying that in the debate. His exact words were:
"I'm sorry Jim, I'm gonna stop the subsidy to PBS. I like PBS, I love Big Bird, I actually like you too, but I'm going to stop borrowing money from China to pay for things we don't need."
The Republicans have been gunning for PBS for years and our current budget problems are just an excuse. If Romney was serious about reducing the budget why is he ignoring the fact that that PBS's yearly funding from the federal government equals 6 hours of funding to the military complex. Cutting funding to PBS amounts to treating a heart attack with a band aid. Romney's little rehearsed zinger about Big Bird is biting him in the butt. Sorry if the truth hurts.
It isn't just about Sesame Street. It's about keeping a free broadcasting source that is available to every single person in the country, that can be used in case of emergencies---be it natural disasters, declarations of war, or terrorist attacks. A broadcasting source that when not needed for emergencies can also maintain a high level of free educational programs and news for adults and for children who don't have access to daycare and early childhood learning. It's about having a broadcasting source that doesn't have to base their broadcasting schedule on what products will sponsor and sell their wares. Cable can't do all that because cable isn't free and it isn't available in all markets like PBS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
Not to mention, investing in PBS is investment in the cultural and educational infrastructure of this country.
Is it worth borrowing from China to fund PBS? Actually, yes. More so than borrowing to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, or to fund unfunded Republican quagmired wars, that's for damn sure.
So nice to read things like facts and common sense!
Thank you both!
The Repuglicans attack my source for Antiques Roadshow, Austin City Limits, Nova, Andreas Viestad, Julia Childs and all the other educational cooking shows, Masterpiece Theater, numerous Blues, rock and Jazz concerts, History Detectives, Ken Burns and of course, the MOST IMPARTIAL NEWS( the REALreason Repugs hate PBS)... and I will give THEM a quagmired war!!!!!
PBS isn't just about Big Bird, they have tons of great programming and since I live rural I would never get to see many of the televised concerts or other great programming like Downton Abby.
As other posters have stated the subsidies PBS gets is minute compaired to military funding, breaks to farmers or banks etc....go pick on something else.
Unless you have a computer and internet access.... then you can watch all the PBS shows you want whenever you want all day every day! Hulu, Amazon Prime, Netflix.... PBS doesn't NEED government funding anymore! You can also buy all of their programs on their websites and they aren't cheap either! PBS could do just fine without government/taxpayer funds.
Unless you have a computer and internet access.... then you can watch all the PBS shows you want whenever you want all day every day! Hulu, Amazon Prime, Netflix.... PBS doesn't NEED government funding anymore! You can also buy all of their programs on their websites and they aren't cheap either! PBS could do just fine without government/taxpayer funds.
You're missing the MAIN point/benefit of having PBS. It's free as in free to the extremely poor and disadvantaged in this country). It's available to anyone who has a basic TV with no cable hook up, nothing to buy. As TRiMT7 says, it's "an investment in the cultural and educational infrastructure of this country" that many young people (and adults) wouldn't get or couldn't afford otherwise.
Unless you have a computer and internet access.... then you can watch all the PBS shows you want whenever you want all day every day! Hulu, Amazon Prime, Netflix.... PBS doesn't NEED government funding anymore! You can also buy all of their programs on their websites and they aren't cheap either! PBS could do just fine without government/taxpayer funds.
And the military industrial complex would still be the largest in the world by enormous magnitudes if we reduced the defense budget by the couple hundred million in funding of public funds given to PBS.
PBS, NPR, science and arts funding by the government.... NASA..... all of it examples of spending by the government that is worth fighting for - and keeping.
You're missing the MAIN point/benefit of having PBS. It's free as in free to the extremely poor and disadvantaged in this country). It's available to anyone who has a basic TV with no cable hook up, nothing to buy. As TRiMT7 says, it's "an investment in the cultural and educational infrastructure of this country" that many young people (and adults) wouldn't get or couldn't afford otherwise.
And it's also free for those same people to get NBC, ABC, CBS, The CW, FOX.... and do any of those channels have government funding? No! They have commercials! So they exist without government funding, so can PBS. Heh, and whats really great, is people like the Koch brothers fund almost all of the PBS shows! So you can thank them for helping to keep PBS free! Maybe if the government stopped funding PBS there would be MORE Billionaires and Corporations who would invest in it... mabye even people like Bill Mahr or Alec Baldwin might learn a thing or two from the Koch brothers about how to give charitably to fund PBS programs!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
