• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

#SavePBS

What % does PBS make up of the overall budget? Around 0.1%? So silly. If you're a politician proposing a cut in spending, at least throw out something that will have an impact instead of something you hope won't ruffle too many feathers.

It's more like 0.01%. That's 445 million out of 3.1 trillion.
 
Last edited:
I've gotta think the sarge is being intentionally obtuse to get a rise out of people. There is no way someone is dumb enough to not know the difference between commercial media and public media

Thanks for the patronizing! I appreciate it!

Perhaps it is a symptom of me being about to get so much programming that I can not imagine needing the federal gov't to fund any of it since all of my programming (except for PBS) is privately funded.

Honestly, I am not trying to be obtuse, but i have about 15 kids channels on my remote (that I skip because I have no kids). Please let me know how come the feds should fund broadcasting....again, I understand why it was necessary when we had 3-5 channels...not when we have 3-500 channels.

And again, from a fed budget perspective, this is a waste to time. You could probably fund 2 years of PBS by eliminating one or two F-35 fighters and I would be cool with that exchange. However, I think we should do without both.
 
Thanks for the patronizing! I appreciate it!

Perhaps it is a symptom of me being about to get so much programming that I can not imagine needing the federal gov't to fund any of it since all of my programming (except for PBS) is privately funded.

Honestly, I am not trying to be obtuse, but i have about 15 kids channels on my remote (that I skip because I have no kids). Please let me know how come the feds should fund broadcasting....again, I understand why it was necessary when we had 3-5 channels...not when we have 3-500 channels.

And again, from a fed budget perspective, this is a waste to time. You could probably fund 2 years of PBS by eliminating one or two F-35 fighters and I would be cool with that exchange. However, I think we should do without both.

Again, there is a difference between those fifteen children's channels on cable and PBS programming...and there are a lot more people out there without access to those 15 channels than you may think.
 
Just read its $1.39 per american, so that's like what, 500 million dollars? That seems like alot of money. I'd rather we spent that $500 million on food for those who can't afford cable.
 
What % does PBS make up of the overall budget? Around 0.1%? So silly. If you're a politician proposing a cut in spending, at least throw out something that will have an impact instead of something you hope won't ruffle too many feathers.

Problem is everyone loves balanced budgets but nobody likes tax increases and foreign aid is the only area where cuts have much support.
 
So I guess you really don't understand the difference between commercial media and public media. Wow
 
Problem is everyone loves balanced budgets but nobody likes tax increases and foreign aid is the only area where cuts have much support.

68% think we give too much in foreign and and 59% think it should be cut
 
So I guess you really don't understand the difference between commercial media and public media. Wow

One day, I hope to be able to understand your intellect. until that time comes, please explain to me how content is affected by the funding source.
 
One day, I hope to be able to understand your intellect. until that time comes, please explain to me how content is affected by the funding source.

Look at the examples already listed. Look what happens when the programming is dependent on commercial funding. Honey boo boo and ancient aliens.
 
please explain to me how content is affected by the funding source.

690185ad-990c-429c-97ff-10ade749fd4d.jpg
 
Look at the examples already listed. Look what happens when the programming is dependent on commercial funding. Honey boo boo and ancient aliens.

I prefer to look at "beyond the wormhole" with Morgan Freeman, 'The Uiverse" Modern Marvels, etc.
 
I prefer to look at "beyond the wormhole" with Morgan Freeman, 'The Uiverse" Modern Marvels, etc.

You asked how funding affects programming. Do you think Honey Boo Boo would be on The Learning Channel if ratings and commercial funding didn't matter?
 
You asked how funding affects programming. Do you think Honey Boo Boo would be on The Learning Channel if ratings and commercial funding didn't matter?

No, but do you think that thru the wormhole would be possible if all we had was PBS? What about Modern Marvels? What about How it's Made?

Sometimes the shit has to pay for the gold.
 
If you don't have cable, then yes, you're lacking national news programming from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m in most of the country. It doesn't matter if other people would pick up Ken Burns documentaries: the fact is that PBS produces and runs these documentaries, educational programming for those who don't have access to the history channel. This isn't a left-wing talking point, either. 132 million people watch PBS.

Really? I can't imagine there are areas where someone receives PBS over the air but doesn't get at least one of ABC, CBS or NBC
 
Really? I can't imagine there are areas where someone receives PBS over the air but doesn't get at least one of ABC, CBS or NBC

You're right, but, two things:

1) as BBD mentioned above, we're talking about the difference between commercial and public broadcasting.

2) if there are only four channels (and I don't have cable, but receive around 10 channels in total-including a Spanish sports channel and a HSN/QVC rip-off), then Sarge's argument of "there's so much already on TV, particularly quality children's and educational program, who needs this, it will just be on History Channel or TLC" is made far less relevant. As the channels you've listed have outsourced certain content to their respective sub-channels, I still think there's still a pretty good case to be made for PBS.

But you certainly have a point and I'd like to see someone who is better informed engage with it further.
 
The cut PBS garbage Romney has been trotting out is one of the most intellectually dishonest parts of his platform. It's like saying "I need to majorly cut my household budget...I think I'll stop buying avocados. That should really change everything."

Pretty much.
 
Back
Top