He had my wife in his corner until he said he would cut funding for PBS.

z6joker9 wrote:

He had my wife in his corner until he said he would cut funding for PBS.

z6joker9 wrote:

He had my wife in his corner until he said he would cut funding for PBS.

z6joker9 wrote:

Go ahead and privatize PBS. NPR, too.

But with full awareness of how big a percent $445M takes out of three and a half trillion dollar budget....my math sucks, but I suspect there's a few zeros after the decimal

dstieger wrote:

It was like Obummer was asleep last night.

MTappert wrote:

Sigh....
you do realize that you're regurgitating a conservative "zinger" about the kool-aid right?

victor809 wrote:

Obama thinks he's god, and is asking America to trust him and drink the kool-aid, which if we do, will lead to our destruction.

dpnewell wrote:

Have you asked her if she feels comfortable borrowing money from China to pay for Big Bird?

Because that was the point Romney was making.

tailgater wrote:

Hey, she grew up watching it and still enjoys some of the broadcasting today. She thinks that the public funding allows PBS more creative control and less private influence.

z6joker9 wrote:

Hey, she grew up watching it and still enjoys some of the broadcasting today. She thinks that the public funding allows PBS more creative control and less private influence. She actually does believe in smaller government, less taxes and less publicly funded operations (she even voted for RP in 2008), but this is a service she thinks is worthwhile for the cost.

I could honestly care less. I understand the exceptionally small amount saved by cutting it isn't much on its own, but combined with hundreds of other similarly small services, can make an impact on the yearly deficit. However, I haven't seen Mitt give very many examples of programs he would cut, especially those with significant line items, and he won't cut Defense spending, which is an area that can certainly use it.

The GOP wants to cut PBS simply because they view it as a left-wing propaganda station. If they would provide a list of other services that will be cut, I have no problem losing it with the tightening of the belt. Until then, it's just a useless talking point as the 0.012% of the budget saved will make zero difference.

z6joker9 wrote:

Where's the taxpayer payback?

DrMaddVibe wrote:

Wait, are you advocating that content creators should lose the rights when they are featured on another company's medium? It looks to me like PBS also benefited from the arrangement, as it gets to feature a popular educational television series. Jim Henson's creation of the muppets pre-dates PBS.

That doesn't even mention that the sale of the muppets did not include Sesame Street or the charaters that appear on the show, since those are owned by a non-profit organization that develops education content for public broadcasting worldwide (including PBS). This organization receives the majority of its funding from licensing. Henson was only brought in to create muppets specifically for Sesame Street, but he was not a creator of the show.

z6joker9 wrote:

And you come back with another practically verbatim regurgitation.
It's hyperbole for effect, I understand that (unless you actually believe that Obama thinks he's god, and actually think that the entire country will be smoking wreckage in 4 years because of him, if that's the case you maybe need to re-examine what salient facts are leading you to believe this). However, the hyperbole you are using is the same crap spouted from the right-wing talk shows. That, juxtaposed with your accusation of other individuals "regurgitating" some sort of left wing statements is irony at its sweetest.

victor809 wrote:

Point is, there is always a level of merit to every program. That is why we need to apply the test to everything: Is it worth borrowing money from China to pay for the program?

tailgater wrote: