"PBS Statement Regarding October 3 Presidential Debate"

Amtrak I can agree with the gop over. It has for years been a bloated money wasting boondoggle.
 
Warrior1461 said:
Amtrak I can agree with the gop over. It has for years been a bloated money wasting boondoggle.
Click to expand...

Maybe it should go or not, but in the context of balancing the budget it, like CPB, is virtually nothing to the federal budget. AMTRAK's subsidies are barely half of one tenth of one percent of the federal budget.
 
Wolrab said:
According to my quick investigoogling, the CBP gets 445 million dollars, nearly half a billion. As the saying goes, "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money".

Every single program, agency, department, etc. that spends taxpayer dollars needs to be looked at. Every single one will have its champions claiming how imperative their mission is and how we need to it continue funding at a higher level next year. The problem isn't taxes, it is spending.
Click to expand...
Until we are willing to tackle the absurdity of defense spending (contrary to Eisenhower's warning) it's a bit disingenuous to make PBS a whipping boy. It's not near enough to say we need to look at every program. Defense doesn't need to be looked at. It needs to be cut upwards of a 60% reduction. Until then I really could not give a damn about PBS and I don't take anyone serious who would suggest that PBS needs the same scrutiny. It is possible to realize that there are priorities and PBS ain't one of them.
 
Warrior1461 said:
Amtrak I can agree with the gop over. It has for years been a bloated money wasting boondoggle.
Click to expand...
It's amazing how the GOP gets to dictate the dialog. I'm not a fan of Amtrak but that's just a red herring. We are being led around by the nose. Get rid of Amtrak for all I care but can't we stay focused? Why does the GOP get to set the agenda for cutting spending?

BTW: The department of defense employ actuaries and are quite adept at running probabilities using Bayes Theorem, ever wonder why they don't tell us the likelihood of needing a military bigger than all of our allies combined?

I'll give you a hint.
 
Wolrab said:
Every single program, agency, department, etc. that spends taxpayer dollars needs to be looked at.
Click to expand...
Sounds nice. Except the ones that favor the powerful, with their armys of lobbyists...well, I'm guessing they wouldn't be much concerned by pronouncement from even the most dedicated "fiscal conservative."
 
What the budget needs is accountability across the board, defense, education, welfare, Amtrak, pbs, nasa etc. That link a woman said they couldn't identify the number of welfare programs their cost or if they are even effective. This is not the sole fault of the dems or republicans. Too many lobbyists have hands in the pot and elected officials have their own pet programs they want to fight for. That is how welfare and defense spending gets out if control.
 
The first thing we need to do is cut defense in half (would recommend phasing that in). There simply is no justification for that level of spending. Until then the rest is a slight of hand to get people to focus on other things. Cut defense and then we can talk. Until then I don't find the discussion serious. It's kind a like having a small leak and a large hole in the boat and the captain says we need to focus on every source of flooding equally. No, we need to prioritize because until then they powers that be will end up focusing on the small things and pretend that they actually did something.
 
RandFan said:
The first thing we need to do is cut defense in half (would recommend phasing that in). There simply is no justification for that level of spending. Until then the rest is a slight of hand to get people to focus on other things. Cut defense and then we can talk. Until then I don't find the discussion serious. It's kind a like having a small leak and a large hole in the boat and the captain says we need to focus on every source of flooding equally. No, we need to prioritize because until then they powers that be will end up focusing on the small things and pretend that they actually did something.
Click to expand...

By your analogy, we should probably make entitlement spending our entire focus, seeing as how it is more than 50% of the budget. Military spending barely clears 20%, and you're confused about what's the large hole in the boat?
 
theprestige said:
By your analogy, we should probably make entitlement spending our entire focus, seeing as how it is more than 50% of the budget. Military spending barely clears 20%, and you're confused about what's the large hole in the boat?
Click to expand...

The problem isn't just the spending it's the fact that building a bomb is a dead end. There is no continued return on that investment. Build a school and the economy sees a return. Build a gun and the economy sees nothing.

Eta: I love America.
 
Last edited:
Biscuit said:
The problem isn't just the spending it's the fact that building a bomb is a dead end. There is no continued return on that investment. Build a school and the economy sees a return. Build a gun and the economy sees nothing.
Click to expand...
That seems pretty short-sighted and ignorant to me.

I'd say the bombs dropped on Germany between 1939 and 1945 had a real and lasting benefit, both humanitarian and economic. Are you prepared to argue that building those bobms was really a "dead end"?

Presumably you're in favor of regulated markets. Are you sure that guns built to enforce market regulation return nothing to the economy?
 
theprestige said:
By your analogy, we should probably make entitlement spending our entire focus...
Click to expand...
No because the poor and vulnerable would be hurt. But I would support cuts to social programs.

Military spending barely clears 20%, and you're confused about what's the large hole in the boat?
Click to expand...
We have no urgent need to spend as much. The military can relatively easily be cut.
 
theprestige said:
I'd say the bombs dropped on Germany between 1939 and 1945 had a real and lasting benefit, both humanitarian and economic. Are you prepared to argue that building those bobms was really a "dead end"?
Click to expand...
Wasn't there a clear and present urgency to build those bombs?

Presumably you're in favor of regulated markets. Are you sure that guns built to enforce market regulation return nothing to the economy?
Click to expand...
I don't think he is calling for zero percent spending but I'll let him speak for himself.
 
RandFan said:
The military can relatively easily be cut.
Click to expand...

I eagerly await your evidence in support of this positive claim.

RandFan said:
I don't think he is calling for zero percent spending but I'll let him speak for himself.
Click to expand...
Here's what he said:

Biscuit said:
Build a gun and the economy sees nothing.
Click to expand...

Is that unambiguous to you? Build a gun and the economy sees nothing.

I eagerly await your rationalization of how the economy sees nothing from defense spending, yet nobody is calling for zero percent defense spending.
 
theprestige said:
I eagerly await your evidence in support of this positive claim.
Click to expand...
How is that not trivially true? I've no idea why cutting defense would be more difficult than cutting any other spending. It's not something I can prove, I simply have no reason to begin to think it is relatively hard. I was offering an opinion that I believe is rather obvious.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom