I am tired of all of these bandwagon PBS fans.

Where is the evidence that we're borrowing money from China to finance PBS?
That sounds like pandering to me

I like PBS - especially the shows for my kids. The gov't has cut its funding to PBS in recent years. PBS gets around 12% of its funding from the gov't. Sesame Street does raise some serious coin through various products and advertising. Could PBS survive without gov't funding? Sure.

Of all the wasteful programs that the gov't has, PBS is low on my hit list. I can see the point that we need to stop spending money we don't have. I do think we could cut back on PBS funding. I would hate to see PBS' gov't funding completely stopped. Overall I think the programming they supply is a good value to the taxpayer. It provides shows that otherwise wouldn't be seen on free television. And yes, we use rabbit (aka digital) ears at home.

Quote from Frogstar : Where is the evidence that we're borrowing money from China to finance PBS? That sounds like pandering to me

There is some political pandering going on. PBS is just a pawn in a bigger game. We do owe China quite a lot of money. They purchase large amounts of our debt which we use to pay for gov't programs. It's a concern. We don't bring in enough money to pay for all our spending. PBS gets gov't funding. Some of that money is borrowed - through treasuries or other vehicles.

"China, which holds $1.17 trillion in U.S. Treasuries, still buys some Treasuries through primary dealers, but since June 2011, that route hasn't been necessary. The documents viewed by Reuters show the U.S. Treasury Department has given the People's Bank of China a direct computer link to its auction system, which the Chinese first used to buy two-year notes in late June 2011.China can now participate in auctions without placing bids through primary dealers. If it wants to sell, however, it still has to go through the market".

http://www.reuters.com/article/20...1720120521


If we are going to live within our means, we do need to make cuts. Right now those cuts will be across the board. Everything from defense to the arts. I think we need a better plan than just slash and burn.

"WASHINGTON — It's not just the Pentagon and defense contractors that face a funding crisis from broad government spending cuts in January. Domestic programs are on the chopping block too, in ways that could affect average Americans more. Fewer air traffic controllers, border guards, FBI agents and park rangers would be on the job as furloughs sweep across the government. Less meat might get inspected, and fewer people would get winter heating subsidies.Military personnel would be exempt from the cuts, but neither Congress nor the White House would be spared.

At issue are sweeping across-the-board spending cuts due to strike Jan. 2 as punishment for the failure of last year's deficit supercommittee to reach a budget deal for achieving less red ink in the future.The idea behind the automatic cuts, called a sequester in Washington parlance, was to force the warring sides to agree on a deal to slash out-of-control deficits that currently require the government to borrow 33 cents of every dollar it spends. The sequester was intentionally designed to be harsh if the negotiators couldn't agree."

http://www.telegram.com/article/2...20819844/0

Quote from StarNova : I like PBS - especially the shows for my kids. The gov't has cut its funding to PBS in recent years. PBS gets around 12% of its funding from the gov't. Sesame Street does raise some serious coin through various products and advertising. Could PBS survive without gov't funding? Sure. Of all the wasteful programs that the gov't has, PBS is low on my hit list. I can see the point that we need to stop spending money we don't have. I do think we could cut back on PBS funding. I would hate to see PBS' gov't funding completely stopped. Overall I think the programming they supply is a good value to the taxpayer. It provides shows that otherwise wouldn't be seen on free television. And yes, we use rabbit (aka digital) ears at home.

It would survive in well-populated areas, but a lot of rural areas could potentially lose PBS if it happens.

Quote from StarNova : There is some political pandering going on. PBS is just a pawn in a bigger game. We do owe China quite a lot of money. They purchase large amounts of our debt which we use to pay for gov't programs. It's a concern. We don't bring in enough money to pay for all our spending. PBS gets gov't funding. Some of that money is borrowed - through treasuries or other vehicles.

Yes, I'm aware that we owe China money, but it's disingenuous to put PBS up as an example.

Quote from Frogstar : It would survive in well-populated areas, but a lot of rural areas could potentially lose PBS if it happens. Yes, I'm aware that we owe China money, but it's disingenuous to put PBS up as an example.

You're right. Smaller stations would be harder hit. They don't have the resources that larger stations have. But right now PBS only receives 12% of their funding from the gov't. If pressed, they could probably survive without it.

Romney could have used any subsidized program as an example. PBS was just used to grab people's attention. Not the best program Romney could have used to make his point.

Quote from StarNova : Romney could have used any subsidized program as an example. PBS was just used to grab people's attention. Not the best program Romney could have used to make his point.

People would have a fit no matter what program was used.

Quote from ashcampbell : People would have a fit no matter what program was used.

That's fair but I do think you could have found something more wasteful and obvious than PBS. Big Bird? Really, that's your example of wasteful gov't spending.

Quote from ashcampbell : People would have a fit no matter what program was used.

I doubt people would be as upset if he said he wouldn't waste money by not going to and continuing unnecessary wars. But it was one of his zingers meant for his base, pure pandering.

Quote from DBC : All I see is a bunch of retards pretending to be PBS viewers because Mitt Romney doesn't like PBS and wants to get rid of the CPB. Seriously, fark the whole lot of them. I hope they all die choking on ham sandwiches.

I'm not a PBS "fan", and I haven't been since I was a small child. I don't watch a single show on the network. It wouldn't affect me personally at all if PBS were gone tomorrow. But that doesn't mean that when I chime in as being against cutting the funding, that I'm suddenly a "fan" and just hate Mitt Romney. I think it's a stupid idea made for all the wrong reasons. Putting together a plan to save nickels when you're hundreds of dollars in debt is not a "plan", you're just making a stand on principle that won't have any real effect. Meanwhile, the real effect that it will have is a negative on on millions of viewers and thousands of workers. Mitt Romney is trying to say that he will balance a deficit that is trillions of dollars and get millions of people back to work by cutting $130M from the budget and firing 6500 people. Does that add up to you? This is just smoke and mirrors. His budget plan doesn't add up, but he identifies a negligible expense that he will cut and it's a big story. Ask yourself why PBS is the example, and why he can't actually name the substantial parts of the budget that he will cut.

Quote from shhaggy : I'm not a PBS "fan", and I haven't been since I was a small child. I don't watch a single show on the network. It wouldn't affect me personally at all if PBS were gone tomorrow. But that doesn't mean that when I chime in as being against cutting the funding, that I'm suddenly a "fan" and just hate Mitt Romney. I think it's a stupid idea made for all the wrong reasons. Putting together a plan to save nickels when you're hundreds of dollars in debt is not a "plan", you're just making a stand on principle that won't have any real effect. Meanwhile, the real effect that it will have is a negative on on millions of viewers and thousands of workers. Mitt Romney is trying to say that he will balance a deficit that is trillions of dollars and get millions of people back to work by cutting $130M from the budget and firing 6500 people. Does that add up to you? This is just smoke and mirrors. His budget plan doesn't add up, but he identifies a negligible expense that he will cut and it's a big story. Ask yourself why PBS is the example, and why he can't actually name the substantial parts of the budget that he will cut.

Because PBS is liberal.

Quote from ikonoklast : I doubt people would be as upset if he said he wouldn't waste money by not going to and continuing unnecessary wars.

Wasnt that a campaign promise of O?

People would bitch because he's reducing the size of the military. Or how cuts in funding directly = to more soldiers dying.

Quote from ashcampbell : Wasnt that a campaign promise of O? People would bitch because he's reducing the size of the military. Or how cuts in funding directly = to more soldiers dying.

Yeah it was and he hasn't done a good enough job on that front but considering what his opponent in 2008 would have done by now, I'll take it.

Not going to war != defense cut. But you are right, warhawks on the right would complain.

Quote from ikonoklast : Yeah it was and he hasn't done a good enough job on that front but considering what his opponent in 2008 would have done by now, I'll take it. Not going to war != defense cut. But you are right, warhawks on the right would complain.

What did mccain have in mind? I just remember talking with my WOW guildmates and one guy was like he's gona die in office and then we'll be stuck with HER!

Saying that of all the government pork out there PBS is what we need to cut is ridiculous. The amount of government money PBS receives is miniscule when compared to all the other things we spend money on. Yet PBS provides lots of educational programs for kids, without blasting commercials for junk foods and toys at them.

Quote : Cutting PBS support (0.012% of budget) to help balance the Federal budget is like deleting text files to make room on your 500Gig hard drive - Neil deGrasse Tyson