"PBS Statement Regarding October 3 Presidential Debate"

Cl1mh4224rd

Philosopher
Cl1mh4224rd
Joined
Dec 27, 2006
Messages
9,778
PBS Statement Regarding October 3 Presidential Debate

PBS said:
The federal investment in public broadcasting equals about one one-hundredth of one percent of the federal budget. Elimination of funding would have virtually no impact on the nation’s debt. Yet the loss to the American public would be devastating.

A national survey by the bipartisan research firms of Hart Research and American Viewpoint in 2011 found that over two-thirds of American voters (69%) oppose proposals to eliminate government funding of public broadcasting, with Americans across the political spectrum against such a cut.
Click to expand...


Seems like Romney's desire to cut federal funding to PBS should be a rather unpopular one across the board, but I'm seeing more humor in response than anything else. Maybe it just needs to sink in?
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Seems like Romney's desire to cut federal funding to PBS should be a rather unpopular one across the board, but I'm seeing more humor in response than anything else. Maybe it just needs to sink in?
Click to expand...

I think everyone knows it's not going to happen. First, Romney won't be elected. Second, even if a miracle happened, and Romney is elected, the POTUS can't dictate that Congress cut funding to PBS. And finally, last time the GOP even threatened to shut down the government over this policy issue (trying to pass it off as a budget issue of this significance), and that attempt failed.

It won't happen, so no one needs to take Romney's desire to cut PBS seriously.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I think everyone knows it's not going to happen. First, Romney won't be elected. Second, even if a miracle happened, and Romney is elected, the POTUS can't dictate that Congress cut funding to PBS. And finally, last time the GOP even threatened to shut down the government over this policy issue (trying to pass it off as a budget issue of this significance), and that attempt failed.

It won't happen, so no one needs to take Romney's desire to cut PBS seriously.
Click to expand...

I agree. It's red meat for the base. The president doesn't have the authority to unilaterally cut funding to PBS.
 
As I recall the few dollars the they do receive from the government come in the form of public grants that they and others apply for. Its not actually a line item in the federal budget.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Seems like Romney's desire to cut federal funding to PBS should be a rather unpopular one across the board, but I'm seeing more humor in response than anything else. Maybe it just needs to sink in?
Click to expand...


Maybe it's simply too obvious that Romney is full of crap and pretty much everything he says is just more pandering to the fearful, stupid, gullible, loyal, racist, religious, and/or rich people targeted by his campaign strategy. Even those people, with the possible exception of the stupid ones, understand that Romney will lie as he feels necessary in his bid for election. The only reason his supporters don't call him out on it is because they hope it will work.
 
Biscuit said:
As I recall the few dollars the they do receive from the government come in the form of public grants that they and others apply for. Its not actually a line item in the federal budget.
Click to expand...

I think funding for the CPB is a line item, and funding for PBS (and NPR, etc.) comes from the CPB. I could be wrong, but that's the way I understand it.
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
I think funding for the CPB is a line item, and funding for PBS (and NPR, etc.) comes from the CPB. I could be wrong, but that's the way I understand it.
Click to expand...

I am channeling a thread from about a year ago when the GOP congress wanted to defund everything and I recall posting a link to NPR's financial report and the way in which the receive grant money. Some people believe that NPR nd the rest are actually run by the government.

A conservative friend on FB posted something like "If Jim Leher worked in the private sector he would have been fired years ago!"
 
IIRC, the right wing already lost this war when they tried to get Bill Moyers off the air and put a Republic shill in as CEO of PBS. Guess they didn't get the message.
 
He don't want to defund PBS to help with the debt, he wants to end PBS because there people that work there and he likes to fire people
 
When I saw him gyrate and condescendingly invoke "Big Bird" and imply pointy headed liberals by including the 78 year old Lehrer in those whom Romney likes, I wanted to retch. I really wonder if he has any idea what PBS actually does. Does he realize that 69% of the public at large values PBS (.01% of budget) as an important institution?

I heard someone say that the PBS thing is just a "dog whistle" to the right wing to let them know that he is still (wink wink) a severe conservative. I pretty much agree.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Wolrab said:
According to my quick investigoogling, 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...
So by your reckoning, any money spent on education is superfluous?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
So by your reckoning, any money spent on education is superfluous?
Click to expand...
I said nothing of the sort. I say every program needs to be re-evaluated. Consolidate duplicate services, tighten belts, eliminate waste, fraud, and corruption. This includes education, agriculture, the military, the war on drugs, welfare (including corporate), and everything else.

I have heard (yes, an anecdote) of departments scrambling to spend excess budget money at the end of a fiscal year with the excuse that if it isn't spent, they won't get the same expenditure next year. Is this true? I don't know, but I have heard it many times from many different sources.

How many government agencies/programs are there? Does anyone know?
 
Wolrab said:
I said nothing of the sort. I say every program needs to be re-evaluated. Consolidate duplicate services, tighten belts, eliminate waste, fraud, and corruption. This includes education, agriculture, the military, the war on drugs, welfare (including corporate), and everything else.

I have heard (yes, an anecdote) of departments scrambling to spend excess budget money at the end of a fiscal year with the excuse that if it isn't spent, they won't get the same expenditure next year. Is this true? I don't know, but I have heard it many times from many different sources.

How many government agencies/programs are there? Does anyone know?
Click to expand...

Funds unspent this year are funds unbudgeted next year. It would be instructive to look at what percentage of discretionary federal spending occurs in September. The last figure I saw for that was around 30 percent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom