• 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

According to this article the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has a 2 year federal grant worth $445 million.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2012/1004/Big-Bird-fired-Cut-wouldn-t-end-PBS-or-balance-budget.-video
The Taliban recently attacked a base and caused over $200 million in damage in one day.
Six of the jets, which each cost between $23 million and $30 million when they were first acquired by the United States Navy, according to a General Accounting Office report, were completely destroyed and two more were so severely damaged it was unlikely they could be repaired. Also badly damaged were three refueling stations and three soft-skinned aircraft hangars, the military said in a news release.
Click to expand...
If Romney wants to cut costs perhaps he should look at the insanely bloated military budgets. Just look at how much the military spends on bands!
In a statement placed in the Congressional Record, McCollum said: “Over the past four years, taxpayers have spent $1.55 billion for the Pentagon’s 150 military bands and more than 5,000 full-time, professional military musicians.... At a time of fiscal crisis the Pentagon will have to get by spending only $200 million for their musical arsenal.”

The military has plans to spend $388 million on military bands in fiscal 2013 — roughly $10 million less than this year.

But, when it comes to reining in spending, only the Air Force had plans to do so, dropping eight of its 23 bands next year. The other services are increasing funding.
Click to expand...
But yes, let's go after PBS, something that benefits far more people.
 
Last edited:
100812.jpg
 
I suppose we could all decide to think critically about borrowing money to subsidize one out of over 500 channels as an "essential government function" worthy of asking our grandchildren to pay interest and principal on its leveraged funding, or we could not think critically and have threads like this one.

Which'evs.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I suppose we could all decide to think critically about borrowing money to subsidize one out of over 500 channels as an "essential government function" worthy of asking our grandchildren to pay interest and principal on its leveraged funding, or we could not think critically and have threads like this one.

Which'evs.
Click to expand...

It is even simpler than that. Is providing early education through subsidized government programs worth the money? My answer, yes. If you want to cut expenses, have at it, but cutting this could cost us more in the long run.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I suppose we could all decide to think critically about borrowing money to subsidize one out of over 500 channels as an "essential government function" worthy of asking our grandchildren to pay interest and principal on its leveraged funding, or we could not think critically and have threads like this one.

Which'evs.
Click to expand...

Facepalm
 
jhmd2000 said:
I suppose we could all decide to think critically about borrowing money to subsidize one out of over 500 channels as an "essential government function" worthy of asking our grandchildren to pay interest and principal on its leveraged funding, or we could not think critically and have threads like this one.

Which'evs.
Click to expand...

Or we could look at it as a comparatively tiny investment in early childhood education, which would pay off BIG dividends down the road when those children do better in school, create new businesses, and hire similarly skilled workers who also got a head start on their education.

Which'evs.
 
Ball State Deac said:
It is even simpler than that. Is providing early education through subsidized government programs worth the money? My answer, yes. If you want to cut expenses, have at it, but cutting this could cost us more in the long run.
Click to expand...

Sure. That would be a worthy discussion. More so, than say, "Romney hates Big Bird, whaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!"

Mitt needs to know that the political discourse in this country is too infantile to try to get cute with examples. What he should have said was "Until we have our financial house in order, we have no choice but to give everything for a closer look. No government program, in any department, bureau or fiefdom, is entitled to its annual budget, unless and until it serves a legitimate governmental function, we have the money to pay for it and the People's elected representatives can be assured that it is being efficiently run. The era of entitlement to last year's budget, plus, plus is over. Full stop."
 
BeachBumDeac said:
Or we could look at it as a comparatively tiny investment in early childhood education, which would pay off BIG dividends down the road when those children do better in school, create new businesses, and hire similarly skilled workers who also got a head start on their education.

Which'evs.
Click to expand...

I haven't weighed in on the answer; just a desire for the right question. But please, let's have six more trite counternarratives instead. Those are great.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Sure. That would be a worthy discussion. More so, than say, "Romney hates Big Bird, whaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!"

Mitt needs to know that the political discourse in this country is too infantile to try to get cute with examples. What he should have said was "Until we have our financial house in order, we have no choice but to give everything for a closer look. No government program, in any department, bureau or fiefdom, is entitled to its annual budget, unless and until it serves a legitimate governmental function, we have the money to pay for it and the People's elected representatives can be assured that it is being efficiently run. The era of entitlement to last year's budget, plus, plus is over. Full stop."
Click to expand...

PBS and the like has been the target of GOP'ers for years. He was throwing them a bone and reveling in it. It was a stupid thing to say, much less suggest. And he meant it.
 
Ball State Deac said:
PBS and the like has been the target of GOP'ers for years. He was throwing them a bone and reveling in it. It was a stupid thing to say, much less suggest. And he meant it.
Click to expand...

PBS is a smokescreen to get the masses riled up, even though a day or a week of dropping bombs on brown people dwarfs the dent PBS makes in the budget.
 
Ball State Deac said:
PBS and the like has been the target of GOP'ers for years. He was throwing them a bone and reveling in it. It was a stupid thing to say, much less suggest. And he meant it.
Click to expand...

It was a carelessly selected example. There are literally tens of thousands of less sympathetic examples of government waste. He shouldn't have had trouble finding a better whipping boy. I cringed as soon as I heard it.
 
He should have said, "I'm not asking for cuts of needed programs, I'm asking for sanity. If the American people knew they borrowed money to [insert obscene, eye-searing amounts of money on useless government study here], they wouldn't be able to look the grandchildren that will have to pay that back in the eyes. My Administration will begin our analysis with 'Do we really need it at all?' instead of 'How much should their budget increase for next year?'"

You can't credibly ask taxpayers for more money until you've cleaned house. With due respect, Mr. President, you can't look the American people in the eyes and tell them you've been responsible in running up six trillion dollars in debt."
 
jhmd2000 said:
It was a carelessly selected example. There are literally tens of thousands of less sympathetic examples of government waste. He shouldn't have had trouble finding a better whipping boy. I cringed as soon as I heard it.
Click to expand...

Obama's response, in fairness, was God awful. He should have said: "I'm not entirely sure what Mr. Romney's point was, but I'll tell you one thing: Big Bird ain't getting fired so long as I'm President."
 
According to Victor Medina of the Washington Examiner who examined Big Bird's corporate tax form from the Sesame Street Workshop

[T]he 990 also revealed that Sesame Workshop received $44,984,003 in royalties last year, which includes sales of Sesame Street brand merchandise like "Tickle Me Elmo" dolls. That means Big Bird made five times in merchandise sales than what he received in government grants.

An even closer look at Sesame Workshop's finances shows the government funding Romney wants to cut is only a small part of their budget and may not be necessary at all. In 2011, Sesame Workshop received $31,555,192 in grants and donations last year apart from the U.S. government. They also raised over $2 million in additional funds from various fundraising events. In all, Sesame Workshop raised almost $34 million in private funds for Sesame Street, aside from government grants.

In addition, Sesame Workshop brought in almost $30 million in revenue from content distribution and media production. In total, Sesame Workshop brought in over $122 million in revenue, not including government grants. On their website, Sesame Workshop claims corporate, foundation, and government support make up 35% of their budget. Realistically, however, government funding only accounts for just over 6% of their budget.
 
But Dirty, Romney and Ryan won't cut the $4B in subsidies the oil industry gets, but $9M for CTW is awful.
 
RJKarl said:
But Dirty, Romney and Ryan won't cut the $4B in subsidies the oil industry gets, but $9M for CTW is awful.
Click to expand...

Which ones? The ones in this year's budget? Who wrote this year's budget, anyway? Was that Jim Lehrer, too? What was the altitude for the signing ceremony in this year's budget?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top