So, back to the guy in the suit, pulling down $314K a year. How dare he be allowed near children when he's the *gasp* filthy, evil disgusting, immoral, cruel thieving 1%!

It's the president who should be chasing him.

(10-10-2012 03:35 PM)Smaug Wrote:  So, back to the guy in the suit, pulling down $314K a year. How dare he be allowed near children when he's the *gasp* filthy, evil disgusting, immoral, cruel thieving 1%!

It's the president who should be chasing him.

someone told me today that the CEO makes 650k

anyone else hear this?

The telecommunications industry and TV are not at all like they were in the 1970s when the program began. The conditions are totally different, there are many more channels available, more options for parents. While it may have made sense to fund this stuff then, the same arguments don't really fly in this day and age. They make gads of money and can stand on their own.

While the amount of money in the PBS case is miniscule compared to our annual deficit, it is the principle of funding stuff that is not essential that so many are missing. When you must borrow to spend like our government, what they spend the money on needs to be looked at hard.

(10-10-2012 11:53 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(10-10-2012 10:55 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Would PBS survive without government? Probably, yes.

Would it be the same? No.

The Learning Channel was once run by NASA. Then, it was privatized. Today, it's TLC and it shows Here Come's Honey Boo Boo.

It's pretty stupid for Romney to claim on one hand that subsidies to the oil industry create jobs and should be kept, but subsidies to PBS are bad and should go away. I'm betting the subsidy to PBS creates a **** ton of jobs, and likely more than what the oil industry subsidy would create because the oil industry doesn't actually need the money to hire.

There is no evidence that Romney supports subsidies for oil industry, as characterized by that statement. He is for lowering the tax rate and eliminate oil subsidies. Repeating the lies do not make it any truer. What it shows is desperation.

I have yet to see anything he has actually proposed eliminating.

(10-10-2012 12:46 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(10-10-2012 12:42 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(10-10-2012 12:39 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-10-2012 12:37 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Tax break = subsidy

Remind me who's money it is, Robs.

I would respectfully ask people on this board stop quoting RobertN. I have him on ignore and every time someone quotes him and I mistakenly read his post I can literally feel my brain move slower.

Good. I hope they keep quoting me. Between my posts and PBS, you may actually LEARN something.

No chance - just another example of the right wing trying to suppress free speech they disagree with.

(10-10-2012 09:40 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  The telecommunications industry and TV are not at all like they were in the 1970s when the program began. The conditions are totally different, there are many more channels available, more options for parents. While it may have made sense to fund this stuff then, the same arguments don't really fly in this day and age. They make gads of money and can stand on their own.

While the amount of money in the PBS case is miniscule compared to our annual deficit, it is the principle of funding stuff that is not essential that so many are missing. When you must borrow to spend like our government, what they spend the money on needs to be looked at hard.

I agree we need to look closer at what we are spending our money on - but PBS seems to offer a good ROI.


http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/08/opinion/bu...index.html

http://www.cpb.org/funding/