Lewdog Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 I think you are missing the point here. Romney is saying they don't need the grant money and the money could be used to trim the national debt. I already made the point about Sesame Street being able to go on, without the grant. Why can't other similar shows on PBS do that as well? There is a big difference than an attack on the current administration, and point out $1500 bagel trays and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrlnutz Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350586536' post='1172007'] I think you are missing the point here. Romney is saying they don't need the grant money and the money could be used to trim the national debt. I already made the point about Sesame Street being able to go on, without the grant. Why can't other similar shows on PBS do that as well? There is a big difference than an attack on the current administration, and point out $1500 bagel trays and such. [/quote] I'm not missing the point, you missed mine, the Billion dollar per year people "don't need" an extra 500K. Sesame Street can run on its own...PBS is much larger than Sesame Street, many of their programs exist solely because of the money they are given by the federal gov. But I'm not concerned with changing your mind, I've read a lot of what you've posted on here lately and I've realized it would be an exercise in futility. I only pointed it out for the fringe readers of this forum (like I was for a while) who may not have enough knowledge and feel too timid to jump in when someone is making a logical conclusions but basing them on false premises such as public broadcasting is undeserving of federal funding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 [quote name='Squirrlnutz' timestamp='1350587958' post='1172014'] I'm not missing the point, you missed mine, the Billion dollar per year people "don't need" an extra 500K. Sesame Street can run on its own...PBS is much larger than Sesame Street, many of their programs exist solely because of the money they are given by the federal gov. But I'm not concerned with changing your mind, I've read a lot of what you've posted on here lately and I've realized it would be an exercise in futility. [b]I only pointed it out for the fringe readers of this forum (like I was for a while) who may not have enough knowledge and feel too timid to jump in when someone is making a logical conclusions but basing them on false premises such as public broadcasting is undeserving of federal funding.[/b] [/quote] I already looked it up, and with a 75% share of a much larger number, PBS received $370 million over a two year period. From what I am understanding you to say is, you think that if the money isn't going to PBS it is going to be going into the pockets of billionaires? That's quite a leap. What if that money was instead spent on the infrastructure of the country. What if the money was put into a private investment for Social Security? You can't just jump into worst case scenario conclusions. I would like to know what premise I am using. I pulled the numbers right off PBS's site. As far as you comparing me to an internet bully, or however you want to put it, I don't just post 3 words or one sentence with no facts or links to back my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrlnutz Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 No wonder you are in a constant state of arguing, you can't follow simple premises. If I clarify again, you will likely take another two steps back but I'll give it one more try. The point is the $370 million is deserved. If it is imperative to save $370 million, like you claimed earlier; "every little bit helps," there are better (for the good of our country's 400 million people) means to make up that revenue than cutting funding to PBS, one of them is to take a tiny bit more from those pulling in over 1B a year. Another would be to end any one of our current wars. Any person claiming to care about making an actual dent in the debt problem but not talking about either of those options first is a liar or just ignorant of the true causes of debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 [quote name='Squirrlnutz' timestamp='1350589771' post='1172031'] No wonder you are in a constant state of arguing, you can't follow simple premises. If I clarify again, you will likely take another two steps back but I'll give it one more try. The point is the $370 million is deserved. If it is imperative to save $370 million, like you claimed earlier; "every little bit helps," there are better (for the good of our country's 400 million people) means to make up that revenue than cutting funding to PBS, one of them is to take a tiny bit more from those pulling in over 1B a year. Another would be to end any one of our current wars. Any person claiming to care about making an actual dent in the debt problem but not talking about either of those options first is a liar or just ignorant of the true causes of debt. [/quote] Now I know for sure you haven't read all my posts. Have you ever heard the saying, "Every great journey begins with one foot step?" You are acting like I PBS is the only thing that Romney thinks no longer needs government grants. With the way licensing for merchandise has blown up so much in the market place, why can't other shows on PBS do the same as Sesame Street, and create their own windfall? $370 million is not deserved. That's a poor sense of entitlement. It's already been discussed in this thread that there are several factors effecting the deficit. The war isn't helping, but it is a proven fact that once a war ends and soldiers are sent home, there is a major upturn in the economy, but once the soldiers start to run out of money and begin looking for a job, it's just not there. Your attack on me saying I haven't discussed different problems with the debt is silly. You must not have read every thing in this thread. I also pointed a fallacy among Democrats on this board. The last time the Feds actually had a surplus of money was under Eisenhower in 1957. There also was a surplus of the budget under Eisenhower in 1956. How did he do it? Before his administration the U.S. was fighting in the Korean War and had a secret mission into Iran to help topple the government. So if you want to blame anyone for the deficit, blame every President since 1957. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrlnutz Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350590918' post='1172039'] Now I know for sure you haven't read all my posts. Have you ever heard the saying, "Every great journey begins with one foot step?" You are acting like I PBS is the only thing that Romney thinks no longer needs government grants. With the way licensing for merchandise has blown up so much in the market place, why can't other shows on PBS do the same as Sesame Street, and create their own windfall? $370 million is not deserved. That's a poor sense of entitlement. It's already been discussed in this thread that there are several factors effecting the deficit. The war isn't helping, but it is a proven fact that once a war ends and soldiers are sent home, there is a major upturn in the economy, but once the soldiers start to run out of money and begin looking for a job, it's just not there. Your attack on me saying I haven't discussed different problems with the debt is silly. You must not have read every thing in this thread. I also pointed a fallacy among Democrats on this board. The last time the Feds actually had a surplus of money was under Eisenhower in 1957. There also was a surplus of the budget under Eisenhower in 1956. How did he do it? Before his administration the U.S. was fighting in the Korean War and had a secret mission into Iran to help topple the government. So if you want to blame anyone for the deficit, blame every President since 1957. [/quote] I can't imagine why they never thought to market Masterpiece Theater dolls for kids at Toys R Us. So you see no use for free public broadcasting? There is no benefit for the masses? Nova Science Now is stupid and the world would be better served letting it turn into TLC and running Honey Boo Boo episodes instead? Frontline brings nothing to the table and really should be a bit more like Nancy Grace? PBS is the last refuge of broadcast and journalistic integrity with the power to reach millions. Because PBS is not burdened with the charge to continue raising cash flow from ad revenue (thanks to the fucking money they get from the government) and therefore can continue to churn out factual, beneficial to the masses, family programming. They deserve $370 million...I'd give them a 1B operating budget if I were in charge because our world needs more of PBS and less of TLC. So now we can't bring soldiers home because they won't have jobs? Then were does war end? My state is re-building the NJ turnpike. If we had another 500 million dollars of federal gov money (or what 1-2 weeks worth of money spent in Afghanistan?) we could triple or quadruple the road crews with returning soldiers, finish the work in half the time, pay the workers union wage (which is probably better than grunt soldier pay) improve traffic conditions and subsequently productivity....don't you see, it keeps fucking going. Their paychecks are spent at the local supermarket, gas station, 7-11 etc. But no, we just built another Drone, bombed a town, killed 30 civillians and 1 suspected terrorist, and sent 3 dozen ground troops into the town where they are now taking fire from a sniper. Yeah you're right we should just keep them there because what will we do when they get home otherwise? I haven't attacked anyone. I say "those who" and "one who" leaving open the opportunity for someone to divulge additional information that would change my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatorclaws Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 I wouldn't doubt that PBS is the best education some kids receive. The money they get is a drop in the hat compared to the real spending issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Yes we did build a drone. Probably to replace the one that got shot down in Iran. I'm pretty sure the U.S. and allies in the Middle East have become a little more worried about that an Extremist group, Hezbollah worked in connection with Iran to build a new drone, after reverse injuring the U.S. one. All the back in forth in this thread has only proven one thing, there is no right answer. I already mentioned bringing some soldiers to do things to help rebuild and create a better infrastructure. I also made the idea that would doubly hope the U.S. used soldiers to man oil rigs and help tap into the resources in Alaska. You can't say I'm just getting on here to attack Obama, and I'm basing all the things I say from a biased position. The best thing for this government, is to use their resources of manpower to help get out of the deficit. Keeping soldiers employed, while becoming less oil dependent from other countries, sounds perfect to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 [quote name='gatorclaws' timestamp='1350593069' post='1172053'] I wouldn't doubt that PBS is the best education some kids receive. The money they get is a drop in the hat compared to the real spending issues. [/quote] Television has changed quite a bit. PBS is no longer one of the few educational channels. Disney channel which used to be an extra channel you had to pay for, no longer is. That goes for Nickloden as well. ABC Family channel, discovery, etc. There are other options out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350593636' post='1172056'] Television has changed quite a bit. PBS is no longer one of the few educational channels. Disney channel which used to be an extra channel you had to pay for, no longer is. That goes for Nickloden as well. ABC Family channel, discovery, etc. There are other options out there. [/quote] You consider Disney & Nickelodeon educational? Now we're getting somewhere. I think there's a "Discovery Kids" block of programs but doubt they're really aimed at the same age group as the children's programming on PBS. Or we could allow women to choose when and if they reproduce, so fewer kids are being raised by television programs? Nope, Romney's talking lizard God wouldn't like that. All of which is to ignore that the annual budget for PBS costs the same as 6 [i]hours[/i] of DoD spending. Of course there's a difference; Romney & his pals can't buy stock in PBS like they can Raytheon & Boeing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 [quote name='T-Dub' timestamp='1350601186' post='1172092'] You consider Disney & Nickelodeon educational? Now we're getting somewhere. I think there's a "Discovery Kids" block of programs but doubt they're really aimed at the same age group as the children's programming on PBS. Or we could allow women to choose when and if they reproduce, so fewer kids are being raised by television programs? Nope, Romney's talking lizard God wouldn't like that. All of which is to ignore that the annual budget for PBS costs the same as 6 [i]hours[/i] of DoD spending. Of course there's a difference; Romney & his pals can't buy stock in PBS like they can Raytheon & Boeing. [/quote] When I go for a doctor's appointment, they always have Disney on. There is a show about Mickey and friends that is all educational. You keep saying that the amount of funding PBS gets is so little, well I guess if the government takes it away, PBS won't skip a beat, because the funding is peanuts. Don't joke around so much about restricting families to having just one or two children. One of these days in the future it certainly might be like that, along with government controlled birth control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 [quote name='Squirrlnutz' timestamp='1350585604' post='1172001'] And there in lies the point. They (read: fox news) has spent a great deal of time chastising things like PBS or the cost of bagels at meetings and lumping them under the banner of every dollar matters...but the reality is that they don't want to talk about money the Fed is printing or giving away, or the actual cost of war and military contracts or any large sum of money that actually matters, so they keep people (and apparently you) distracted with shiny things to bitch about and spew them with such force that the lay person is left to conclude that these issues are actually important. Any discussion of saving money and paying off our national debt that doesn't include pulling out of the war or a 50% reduction in military spending is not worth having. I can cut out my morning danish, switch to skim milk, drink coke zero, have a banana in the afternoon, and eat only one measured serving of ice cream after dinner...but if I don't stop going to the pizza shop and eating 3 slices of Buffalo Chicken pizza 7 days a week for lunch, am I going to lose any weight? Am I even on a fucking diet? $370 million sounds like a lot of money...but its pittance when you realize we could make up that revenue by a .025% capital gains tax increase on the top 1% of earners. What brings more to society; 350 public broadcast TV stations across the country that provide the only true form of Journalism left on TV as well as tens of thousands of hours of family programming or an extra 500K in the pockets of 800 people who already earn over 1B a year? If you are earning over a Billion a year that's roughly 2.7 million dollars a day. We can ask a handful of people to sacrifice 1/5 of one days salary or completely cutoff PBS. What fucking world must one live in to think the second option makes more sense? [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 [quote name='gatorclaws' timestamp='1350593069' post='1172053'] I wouldn't doubt that PBS is the best education some kids receive. The money they get is a drop in the hat compared to the real spending issues. [/quote] This is my last comment in this thread. If the children of the U.S. is being educated by a channel on the television, the U.S. has a lot more problems than giving funding to PBS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350607894' post='1172109'] the U.S. has a lot more problems than giving funding to PBS. [/quote] That's exactly it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.