Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on October 07, 2012, 11:28:28 PM
-
A few years ago, it occurred to me that if politicians are serious about balancing the budget, they will propose that we eliminate funding for certain programs. PBS was one of those programs.
I was not a little surprised to hear Romney bring that up in the debate. If elected, would he actually suggest that to Congress and could it pass?
I also find it interesting that PBS only receives 5% of its funding from Washington. It's not as if it has no chance of surviving. Romney could even donate a big chunk of his own change to it, for appearance sake.
-
I've always thought that making political promises to cut PBS were symbolic.
While I think it should happen I really think it's more of a peripheral thing that should not be the centerpiece of any budget balancing measure.
If your problem is this big
>-----------------------------------------------------------------<
Then making it this big
>----------------------------------------------------------------<
Isn't much of a help. [tinfoil]
-
Have they promised to cut it before? I don't recall hearing that before. But then, I don't spend very much time listening to their promises.
But like I said, it's just one program. One program that will be cut when we start taking all of this seriously.
-
First it's "The War on the Poor", next it's "The War on Women"*, now it's "The War on PBS/Big Biird". How come I never get the memo?!?!
*However, only a Democrat, Ted Kennedy, has a confirm killed, while another, Bill Clinton, was found guilty of perjury regarding his affair with a woman , and disbarred.
-
Have they promised to cut it before? I don't recall hearing that before. But then, I don't spend very much time listening to their promises.
But like I said, it's just one program. One program that will be cut when we start taking all of this seriously.
Every so often I hear Republicans mention cutting of PBS funding. Seems like its part of the political theater when they want to burnish their fiscal conservative bonafides.
-
It looks like
the Left Occupy America has figured out that the War on _____ formula is getting a bit diluted. I had to hit the second page of search results before I could find somebody else using the phrase, "War on PBS."
http://www.theprogressiveprofessor.com/?p=19566
He bills his blog as "An educated view from the left," but he still manages to end 5 out of 7 sentences with an exclamation mark!
He also would eliminate Amtrak, a transportation system that benefits the “hated” Northeast part of the country, the most educated part of the nation!
I guess he thinks that's the only way us regular folks will keep reading!
If he makes it exciting!
-
!!!!!!!
I posted this on my facebook, I've got tons of B.O libs reading my profile ( at least 50 have unfriended me this yr! )
News Roundup:
Intelligent people who follow national current events and politics are very concerned with the NDAA, The Patriot act, and killing tons of children with drone bomb attacks, all approved by the Obama administration. These people are also concerned about the Libya Consulate 9-11 terrorist attacks and the execution of a diplomat, & wonder why it needed to be covered up.
Other people are worried about Big Bird.
We in the news business call these people "Democrats".
I think Mitt taking on "Big Bird" was carefully orchestrated and brilliant. Now the D's get to talking about cartoon characters for a few days then "we" get to ask them isn't there really substantial issues we are concerned about? :cool: :laugh:
-
Every so often I hear Republicans mention cutting of PBS funding. Seems like its part of the political theater when they want to burnish their fiscal conservative bonafides.
They have actually tried to cut it before. Democrats ended up turning it into some sort of sacred cow and it didn't happen. It was probably the 90's when they last tried. Similar to when they tried to cut federally funded school lunch programs. Dems and media accused them of starving kids. It went no where.
It only takes a small number of weak members to kill your majority.
-
"Honey! I just took a demotion from $100,000 a year to $40,000 a year"
"Great, sweetie. Lets make sure we keep going to the movies though. I know its only $40 a week."
-
"He bills his blog as "An educated view from the left," but he still manages to end 5 out of 7 sentences with an exclamation mark! "
People who claim to be educated, but only end up proving they are narrow minded, usually embarrass those who actually are educated.
I dint know that leftists had them any edumacation.
-
I've always thought that making political promises to cut PBS were symbolic.
While I think it should happen I really think it's more of a peripheral thing that should not be the centerpiece of any budget balancing measure.
If your problem is this big
>-----------------------------------------------------------------<
Then making it this big
>----------------------------------------------------------------<
Isn't much of a help. [tinfoil]
You're right. The crux of the issue, though, is that if we can't reach consensus that the PBS subsidy et al should go, how in the world will entitlement spending, or the fundamental philosophical differences we face make it to the table?
-
I've always thought that making political promises to cut PBS were symbolic.
While I think it should happen I really think it's more of a peripheral thing that should not be the centerpiece of any budget balancing measure.
If your problem is this big
>-----------------------------------------------------------------<
Then making it this big
>----------------------------------------------------------------<
Isn't much of a help. [tinfoil]
No, but as has been stated multiple times, when your budget is seriously unbalanced, you don't continue to spend $5 a day on coffee because $5 dollars won't make much of a difference.
Instead, you cut the $5 on coffee because you don't need to spend it. And you continue with your budget in the same way. If you can't even cut $5, then you're screwed, regardless.
-
First it's "The War on the Poor", next it's "The War on Women"*, now it's "The War on PBS/Big Biird". How come I never get the memo?!?!
*However, only a Democrat, Ted Kennedy, has a confirm killed, while another, Bill Clinton, was found guilty of perjury regarding his affair with a woman , and disbarred.
The "war" is real, but it's the exact opposite of the one cited.
-
I've always thought that making political promises to cut PBS were symbolic.
While I think it should happen I really think it's more of a peripheral thing that should not be the centerpiece of any budget balancing measure.
If your problem is this big
>-----------------------------------------------------------------<
Then making it this big
>----------------------------------------------------------------<
Isn't much of a help. [tinfoil]
No, but as has been stated multiple times, when your budget is seriously unbalanced, you don't continue to spend $5 a day on coffee because $5 dollars won't make much of a difference.
Instead, you cut the $5 on coffee because you don't need to spend it. And you continue with your budget in the same way. If you can't even cut $5, then you're screwed, regardless.
True that.
The whiny shrill response some libs evoke when small expense cutting measures are proposed have always made me wonder just what h3ll would break loose should some conservative propose something that would REALLY save a lot of $$$$$$$$.
-
It's theatre. And it entertaining. I am for cutting funds to PBS. Will it make a dent, no. But PBS is left leaning, and that is the reason I don't want my tax dollars goin to it. Would feel the same if it was right leaning. Supposed to be "public broadcast". Not "political broadcast".
-
It's theatre. And it entertaining. I am for cutting funds to PBS. Will it make a dent, no. But PBS is left leaning, and that is the reason I don't want my tax dollars goin to it. Would feel the same if it was right leaning. Supposed to be "public broadcast". Not "political broadcast".
That and they are already selling advertising and soliciting donations. They don't need Govt funding. Neither does NPR.
-
That and they are already selling advertising and soliciting donations. They don't need Govt funding. Neither does NPR.
This. Who is still under the illusion that PBS isn't just as commercial as for-profit networks? Oh, wait, it's "sponsor acknowledgment" and not filthy "commercials". I believe they also retain all revenue from merchandising/video sales, etc.
-
That and they are already selling advertising and soliciting donations. They don't need Govt funding. Neither does NPR.
Yep. NPR needs to either survive on its own, or go the way of Air America Radio.
-
To expect the kind of discriminating spending cuts that we should ideally have is way, way too romantic in this culture. The best we are going to do is to exchange the Exacto knife for the meat axe. Across the board cuts, to everyone and everything, are probably the only hope we have to actually make meaningful reductions. Start with five per cent a year--and no baseline automatic increases--and keep at it until things look up.
-
I've always thought that making political promises to cut PBS were symbolic.
While I think it should happen I really think it's more of a peripheral thing that should not be the centerpiece of any budget balancing measure.
If your problem is this big
>-----------------------------------------------------------------<
Then making it this big
>----------------------------------------------------------------<
Isn't much of a help. [tinfoil]
It's better than what we've been doing, which is this:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<
Addendum in red
-
If you really want to cut the budget, the best possible way to accomplish that is by going after something that is both popular and a microscopic fraction of the overall budget.
-
The whiny shrill response some libs evoke when small expense cutting measures are proposed have always made me wonder just what h3ll would break loose should some conservative propose something that would REALLY save a lot of $$$$$$$$
.
For one thing, he would be locked out of the Republican National Convention =D
-
Big Bird is a (large) canary in a coal mine. If we can't kill off a miniscule governmental subsidy to a viable ongoing commercial operation, we will never be able to cut spending anywhere else.
-
Big Bird is a (large) canary in a coal mine. If we can't kill off a miniscule governmental subsidy to a viable ongoing commercial operation, we will never be able to cut spending anywhere else.
I disagree. PBS is hard to cut, because cutting it accomplishes nothing. We all know the big programs that have to be restructured/eliminated to establish fiscal solvency, and in the case of those cuts we can argue that it will actually solve a problem. Cutting all useless cowboy poetry/PBS etc programs may be a nice gesture, but it doesn't solve the issue.
-
The whiny shrill response some libs evoke when small expense cutting measures are proposed have always made me wonder just what h3ll would break loose should some conservative propose something that would REALLY save a lot of $$$$$$$$
For one thing, he would be locked out of the Republican National Convention =D
Amongst other similar places as well...... [popcorn]
-
I think the government can dump funding PBS and the "Arts". I see no reason to borrow money so we can fund PBS or the arts.
-
Got to start some where...
-
Got to start some where...
This.
Riddle me this, all the people who don't think it's a big deal.
Say you take a pay cut.
You have a daily Starbucks habit. $4 a day is nothing compared to other ways to blow a paycheck.
But should you really keep spending that $4 a day?
-
This.
Riddle me this, all the people who don't think it's a big deal.
Say you take a pay cut.
You have a daily Starbucks habit. $4 a day is nothing compared to other ways to blow a paycheck.
But should you really keep spending that $4 a day?
No. But if you're $3000 a month short income vs expenditures, saying "Well I stopped going to Starbucks!" like it actually means anything is stupid.
This is both a pointless gesture to "look like we're doing something" as well as an unpopular one. It's a dog and pony show, and a distraction.
If you have a cold and brain cancer then both are medical issues that need addressed, but if the Dr is only working on the cold it's pointless.
-
It's not pointless. If you can't cut the $4/day Starbucks expense, how do you expect to tackle the $150/month bundled cable bill?
If they can't agree to cut funding for small things, then they'll never reach agreement on the big things.
-
It's not pointless. If you can't cut the $4/day Starbucks expense, how do you expect to tackle the $150/month bundled cable bill?
If they can't agree to cut funding for small things, then they'll never reach agreement on the big things.
See, I don't agree with that. If they cut small things, they can "look like they're doing something" and run and get elected as a budget cutter. If you're trying to talk someone into an amputation, you have a lot better chance with "you have gangrene in that leg, it's lose it or die" vs "well, it won't really accomplish much of anything but hey, you gotta start somewhere."
It's because budget cuts are so unpopular that we need to be making substantiative arguments about actual changes that will actually make a difference, not this feel good window dressing BS.
-
We are all going to have to re-define what's "essential."
That doesn't mean we have to do without it; it does mean we will have to do without overt and covert subsidies and take full responsibility for our wants and desires.
This is the crux of it. Government doesn't get to set the rules for The People.
-
It's because budget cuts are so unpopular that we need to be making substantiative arguments about actual changes that will actually make a difference, not this feel good window dressing BS.
Of course.
-
Maybe a president Romney will compromise and allow funding for the evil PBS in exchange for real tax/entitlement reform. :laugh:
I know, pipe dream... =(
-
Got to start some where...
Agreed....as long as PBS is the start....not the end....
-
Agreed....as long as PBS is the start....not the end....
I doubt it will be more than this. Cutting PBS, which amounts to .012% of the budget, won't do much, but it polls well with most conservatives. Other more substantial cuts may not, so I doubt we will see any meaningful reform.
-
Making the draconian cuts that are necessary to deal with our fiscal problems requires moral and social re-setting, not just bipartisan tweaks to our tax code, etc. We have not even begun to discuss who is "worthy," for example, of "help," and why. We continue to avoid the hard, raw questions that must in the end be posed. You will notice, for example, that so far there has not been a word about immigration in three hours of debate; don't expect much if anything tonight.
-
What was the actual process Romney used to lower government spending in Massachusetts?
Somehow he balanced the budget with no increase in taxes.
He's proposing to do something similar with the Federal budget. What are the mechanics of that?
There was no PBS to de-fund in MA. And, while I'm sure there were plenty of random little things that got cut, surely he addressed some larger things?
And then there's Scott Walker, whom I believe has more lately done something similar to reduce the structural deficit in Wisconsin.
What did those guys do that actually cut spending?
-
Romney took used a lot of fed.gov funds to cover shortfalls in MA's budget.
-
Romney took used a lot of fed.gov funds to cover shortfalls in MA's budget.
Bummer.
That's not a structural remedy.
-
You were maybe expecting a real conservative?
No real conservative is going to get anywhere near any prospective American election, not in this America.