(10-09-2012 04:33 PM)gdunn Wrote:  If Romney or Obama wanted to show some leadership, whichever is elected, they should give up their salary for the next 4 years and put it back into the country. Neither really need it.

I like the idea of having everyone wear name tags!

(10-09-2012 04:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:33 PM)gdunn Wrote:  If Romney or Obama wanted to show some leadership, whichever is elected, they should give up their salary for the next 4 years and put it back into the country. Neither really need it.

I like the idea of having everyone wear name tags!

We know, especially the ones that say Jude.

(10-09-2012 04:55 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:33 PM)gdunn Wrote:  If Romney or Obama wanted to show some leadership, whichever is elected, they should give up their salary for the next 4 years and put it back into the country. Neither really need it.

I like the idea of having everyone wear name tags!

We know, especially the ones that say Jude.

(10-09-2012 05:07 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:55 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:33 PM)gdunn Wrote:  If Romney or Obama wanted to show some leadership, whichever is elected, they should give up their salary for the next 4 years and put it back into the country. Neither really need it.

I like the idea of having everyone wear name tags!

We know, especially the ones that say Jude.

Wait until I get on my government aid rant where I want those who've never worked or can pass a drug test off of it.

(10-09-2012 03:40 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 03:29 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 03:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 02:02 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  All in all , I think the plug could be pulled on PBS because (a) the public has countless more choices for information than they had just twenty years ago, and (b) PBS's programming is popular and strong enough to survive on its own. Shows like Sesame Street and Nova will survive without skipping a beat.

But I won't lose a wink of sleep if the station continues to be partially funded by the feds. It's so far down the list of concerns. I may agree with Romney in priniciple on PBS, but he could've instead listed off some serious pork/bloat examples on the national stage last week (and let's face it, PBS is one of those things the vast majority have either neutral or positive feelings toward).

Good points. And coupled with his calls for unprecedented, unaffordable and unwanted military spending increases, it looks pretty pathetic to even warrant a mention.

Defense spending by the Federal Government is a responsibility spelled out in the constitution. I don't think funding a television channel was part of the constitution. I'd do more checking into military preparedness before I labeled increased spending proposals unwanted.

No, funds are funds and we need to cut where there would be a difference made.

It all makes a difference.

Two things strike me about this thread.

First is the persistent lack of understanding of the point Romney was making by the libs here.

Second that no lib here has offered a single sound reason why PBS should continue to be funded by tax dollars.

(10-09-2012 08:26 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Two things strike me about this thread.

First is the persistent lack of understanding of the point Romney was making by the libs here.

Second that no lib here has offered a single sound reason why PBS should continue to be funded by tax dollars.

It is one of the few truly positive things our government does, things like Sesame Street are broadcast worldwide to dozens of nations and provides a positive experience for millions of children each year. You want to know why we should continue funding it and not privatize it? A simple glance at The Learning Channels biggest star can show you what befalls a public educational station that privatizes -

.

I think we should aim for providing our children with an option for television that isn't controlled directly by advertising and the desire to sell merchandise. It's a noble goal, and for the whopping price of less than 1/100th of a percent of our budget, yeah, I think it's something worth doing.

All of that being said, if it were on the chopping block as part of serious attempt at lowering the budget, along with other, far larger programs, then I'd cut it in a heartbeat. Wouldn't even bat my eye, it is important to me and I think it's absolutely worth it, but it pales in comparison to the issue of our Debt. However, that isn't this situation, Romney is simply using it as a 'LOOK IM SERIOUS I'D EVEN CUT PBS!!!" when he ended his speech with a statement on how he'd increase the military budget by f*cking $2 TRILLION.

(10-09-2012 04:13 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:05 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:00 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Overextension of the military isn't a problem of funding, it's a problem of overextending ourselves. The military absolutely needs to be cut back, and massively so.

You are gravely mistaken on that and that way of thinking ignores history and the reality that there will be threats to our security in the future and it may not just be from terrorist groups.

I'm ignoring history? Yes, americas meddling in world affairs has only resulted in positives. I'm very happy that your school of thought is slowly losing influence, because it's a very dangerous and expensive one.

My school of thought is dangerous? I invite you to look back to the late 20's and early 30's where your school of thought was prevalent. We had just came out of WWI, felt no one would ever fight another war like that again and concentrated federal spending on domestic programs while scaling back defense. Result was we entered the war with inferior planes, inferior tanks, not enough troops, and the result was early war losses that may not have happened otherwise. The price paid was in lost lives. Think it can't happen again? History shows otherwise.

(10-09-2012 04:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:07 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Nobody is saying defense spending is not mandated or important. And we certainly aren't advocating for its total demise like PBS funding.

But we don't have the money to fund the huge increase Mittens wants. Certainly not without tax increases or huge cuts to domestic safety nets. Thankfully, it will likely never happen as the Senate looks to remain in D hands.

Democrats have always been willing to spend as much as possible on anything other than what the contitution calls for.

You seem like a nice guy. Please don't act like the modern Republican party is the bastion of conservative spending, ok?

We weren't born yesterday!

Unfortunately that is correct there are too many republicans who will go along with expanding the federal government beyond anything imagined by those who founded this country.

(10-09-2012 09:14 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:13 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:05 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:00 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Overextension of the military isn't a problem of funding, it's a problem of overextending ourselves. The military absolutely needs to be cut back, and massively so.

You are gravely mistaken on that and that way of thinking ignores history and the reality that there will be threats to our security in the future and it may not just be from terrorist groups.

I'm ignoring history? Yes, americas meddling in world affairs has only resulted in positives. I'm very happy that your school of thought is slowly losing influence, because it's a very dangerous and expensive one.

My school of thought is dangerous? I invite you to look back to the late 20's and early 30's where your school of thought was prevalent. We had just came out of WWI, felt no one would ever fight another war like that again and concentrated federal spending on domestic programs while scaling back defense. Result was we entered the war with inferior planes, inferior tanks, not enough troops, and the result was early war losses that may not have happened otherwise. The price paid was in lost lives. Think it can't happen again? History shows otherwise.

I guess it could happen again, but if it did, the number of battleships our navy had would be of no concern, except to the cockroaches that'd inevitably inhabit their rusting shells as they sat docked in harbor after the immediate nuclear holocaust.

Seriously, you look back a generation to find support for your stance, ignoring just how many conflicts where we overextended ourselves, costing how many american lives, just to involve ourselves in political chess matches that ended up with the ire of billions worldwide? We're not the world police, we need to stop acting like we are. And if we do accept that, we can make massive cuts without endangering american sovereignty or lives.

(10-09-2012 08:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  It is one of the few truly positive things our government does, things like Sesame Street are broadcast worldwide to dozens of nations and provides a positive experience for millions of children each year. You want to know why we should continue funding it and not privatize it? A simple glance at The Learning Channels biggest star can show you what befalls a public educational station that privatizes -

Trash on TV isn't a valid case for continuing to fund PBS. There are numerous shows on private channels that are great for learning. The Disney channel has shows all over the place that teach morality lessons. Dora the Explorer, Mike the Knight, and countless other shows fill the same educational niche the Sesame Street does. If it were the only show out there that provided the benefits you speak of I could get on your side. But it is one of many.

Quote:I think we should aim for providing our children with an option for television that isn't controlled directly by advertising and the desire to sell merchandise. It's a noble goal, and for the whopping price of less than 1/100th of a percent of our budget, yeah, I think it's something worth doing.

Interesting. Are you aware that Sesame Street pulled in over 49 million dollars in 2011 from merchandising? It ranks in the top 5 of most valuable brands in children's merchandising. They brought in 30 million for content distribution. In total they've brought in over 122 million dollars last year sans the government grants they received. Given numbers like that the chances fo them going away without government money is next to nil.

Quote:However, that isn't this situation, Romney is simply using it as a 'LOOK IM SERIOUS I'D EVEN CUT PBS!!!" when he ended his speech with a statement on how he'd increase the military budget by f*cking $2 TRILLION.

That wasn't his point. His point was we have to stop borrowing from China to fund those things that aren't necessary. If the choice is borrowing from China or funding PBS what resonable person would say, "yeah, let's become more indebted to China." It was an example of a larger philosophy he was getting at.

PBS doesn't need the government money it gets to make it. Sesame Street sure as hell doesn't need it.

If Obama wants to talk about Big Bird, the American people will just think he's a clown.

While Romney is serious about the budget, Obama is talking about a Sesame Street character.

(10-09-2012 09:25 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Trash on TV isn't a valid case for continuing to fund PBS. There are numerous shows on private channels that are great for learning. The Disney channel has shows all over the place that teach morality lessons. Dora the Explorer, Mike the Knight, and countless other shows fill the same educational niche the Sesame Street does. If it were the only show out there that provided the benefits you speak of I could get on your side. But it is one of many.

I understand that, but those are all ran by corporations driven directly by profit. I see a distinct difference.

Quote:Interesting. Are you aware that Sesame Street pulled in over 49 million dollars in 2011 from merchandising? It ranks in the top 5 of most valuable brands in children's merchandising. They brought in 30 million for content distribution. In total they've brought in over 122 million dollars last year sans the government grants they received. Given numbers like that the chances fo them going away without government money is next to nil.

I realize this, but that is due to the funding not allowing them to complete their mission. I'd rather we fund it outright, if we're going to fund it at all, but Sesame Street isn't a for profit entity. The funds which it makes go directly into making better programming. It's much like the Football programs of our beloved colleges, they make money but that money goes elsewhere; to scholarships and other sports which can't be monetarily driven.

Quote:That wasn't his point. His point was we have to stop borrowing from China to fund those things that aren't necessary. If the choice is borrowing from China or funding PBS what resonable person would say, "yeah, let's become more indebted to China." It was an example of a larger philosophy he was getting at.

...What larger philosophy? That math should be ignored when addressing the national debt? It's hypocritical, and misleading to make the statement you're going to lower the debt by cutting $400million, then state you're going to increase spending by 2,000x that amount you state you're going to cut.

Again though, I would cut it in a heartbeat if it were part of a legitimate attempt at lowering our deficit and not just being used as a "LOOK, I'M GOING TO DO THIS (OH IGNORE THAT I'M NOT)" tactic

(10-09-2012 09:22 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 09:14 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:13 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:05 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:00 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Overextension of the military isn't a problem of funding, it's a problem of overextending ourselves. The military absolutely needs to be cut back, and massively so.

You are gravely mistaken on that and that way of thinking ignores history and the reality that there will be threats to our security in the future and it may not just be from terrorist groups.

I'm ignoring history? Yes, americas meddling in world affairs has only resulted in positives. I'm very happy that your school of thought is slowly losing influence, because it's a very dangerous and expensive one.

My school of thought is dangerous? I invite you to look back to the late 20's and early 30's where your school of thought was prevalent. We had just came out of WWI, felt no one would ever fight another war like that again and concentrated federal spending on domestic programs while scaling back defense. Result was we entered the war with inferior planes, inferior tanks, not enough troops, and the result was early war losses that may not have happened otherwise. The price paid was in lost lives. Think it can't happen again? History shows otherwise.

I guess it could happen again, but if it did, the number of battleships our navy had would be of no concern, except to the cockroaches that'd inevitably inhabit their rusting shells as they sat docked in harbor after the immediate nuclear holocaust.

Seriously, you look back a generation to find support for your stance, ignoring just how many conflicts where we overextended ourselves, costing how many american lives, just to involve ourselves in political chess matches that ended up with the ire of billions worldwide? We're not the world police, we need to stop acting like we are. And if we do accept that, we can make massive cuts without endangering american sovereignty or lives.

I went back that far because it best illustrates what can happen as a result of your line of thinking. You can look at readiness reports from post gulf war thru present time to see the effects of cuts without reduction in mission requirements.

Readiness reports, put out by whom?

(10-09-2012 09:39 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I understand that, but those are all ran by corporations driven directly by profit. I see a distinct difference.

I've worked for profits and non profits and by in large people at both companies are there for the pay check.

Quote:I realize this, but that is due to the funding not allowing them to complete their mission. I'd rather we fund it outright, if we're going to fund it at all, but Sesame Street isn't a for profit entity. The funds which it makes go directly into making better programming.

Thats called plowback and private companies do it as well.

Quote:...What larger philosophy?

That we don't borrow from China to fund non essential functions..

Quote:That math should be ignored when addressing the national debt? It's hypocritical, and misleading to make the statement you're going to lower the debt by cutting $400million

400 Million here, 400 million there and eventually you're talking about real money.

Quote: 400 Million here, 400 million there and eventually you're talking about real money.

Sure, cut 100 of them, and you'd have cut 1% of the budget. And like I've said multiple times before, cut it if it's part of a legitimate plan to make massive cuts and address this issue, but that's not the case here. It's grandstanding for simpletons.

(10-09-2012 10:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote: 400 Million here, 400 million there and eventually you're talking about real money.

Sure, cut 100 of them, and you'd have cut 1% of the budget. And like I've said multiple times before, cut it if it's part of a legitimate plan to make massive cuts and address this issue, but that's not the case here. It's grandstanding for simpletons.

And if you did raise the taxes on the top 1% you would not make much more of a dent in the budget yet thats what the left lives by..

(10-09-2012 10:49 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 10:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote: 400 Million here, 400 million there and eventually you're talking about real money.

Sure, cut 100 of them, and you'd have cut 1% of the budget. And like I've said multiple times before, cut it if it's part of a legitimate plan to make massive cuts and address this issue, but that's not the case here. It's grandstanding for simpletons.

And if you did raise the taxes on the top 1% you would not make much more of a dent in the budget yet thats what the left lives by..

Um, the difference between the two, I'm assuming you're referring to the repealing of the bush tax cuts, is exponential. Numbers I found put it at $146 Billion compared to $444 Million. That's ~300 times larger, so they're not comparable.