Doesn't it seem like Sesame Street should MAKE money (and pay taxes to the government) rather than TAKE money in the form of government subsidies? If the feds were helping fund Disneyland, I don't think that people would be upset if Mickey Mouse were expected to stand on his own two feet. Ed O.
To be fair, they talked a lot about being able to fight wars in two theaters at the same time. Then they went out and started wars in two theaters. How about we scale back our requirements, missions, and strategic plans?
I think Mitt put it as plain as it can be stated. He would take a look at each item and make a decision for or aginst based upon the criteria of "Is this worth barrowing monies from China to further fund?" He even stated that he liked the mod, BigBird etc, etc. When I saw Mitt say that, at first I believed that he had made a big mistake, to expose on national TV his willingness to take an ax to the alter of the left, but upon reflection, I feel that it took balls to make a stand. Further, if the harshest criticism that can be said about him last night was this, well, that alone is a victory.
I don't know what kind of restrictions goes into getting gov't money, but if the gov't can help provide youth programing without all the advertisment for fast food or toys, I think that is good for society. The disney channel is a bunch of commericials for disney products or kids products that are not healthy. On top of that , they seem to have little censor on the shows they run. They are more concerned about getting kids to watch than they are about what the kids are actually watching, IMO. I would hate to see PBS die if fed funding stopped. But i suppose PBS can probably just sell out to advertisers and shows that draw ratings. If it happens, I would hope they would still put quality shows as a hgh priority though.
I just thought he came across as more of a real human being than he has in the Republican debates/on the stump. He seemed less like an artificially concocted right wing product and more like a guy who was speaking from conviction. (I was listening on the radio, so I didn't see body language.) For much of the debate he just seemed more like a rational moderate New England Republican. He was even arguing for banking regulation at one point. But it wasn't so much policy as it was demeanor. I think the specter of him losing badly has opened up an opportunity to portray himself more as a centrist without getting crucified by the right. Given his penchant for being all over the map on policy, the center is probably the most natural for him. It gives me hope that if he were to win, he could effect real policy change that could gain bipartisan support. For example, if Romney had somehow won the 2008 election, I think he probably could've pushed through a very similar bill to the ACA, but one with bipartisan support. The ACA is essentially a Republican idea that they had to turn against because Obama was for it. Democrats might similarly turn against Romney were he to win, but the Democratic penchant for actually wanting to legislate stuff makes me think they wouldn't be nearly so unified in opposition as Republicans have been.
PBS is 85% sponsored by viewers like you. Pony up and they won't need to sell out to any corporate interests.
OK boss. I'm sure if feds cut their funding, all I need to do us pony up and they won't need to sell out to corporate interest. Sounds like solid plan!
Heh. I'm just pointing out that they get the vast majority of their funding NOT from the govt. and they aren't selling out to corporate interests. I don't think they need govt. money because they have a service and model that people support. I also find it questionable to have the govt. even in some perceived position to influence the media like this (ownership, pay its bills).
^^^ Interesting. I just looked up the etch-a-sketch comment and I don't see any reference to "republican voters' minds and memories" in the quote. Nor does it say "just give it a shake and draw the picture again." What was said was, "the general election is almost like an etch-a-sketch. We kind of shake it and start all over again.” Do you see even a subtle difference?
When I read that statement, it makes sense and I want to agree with that. Then I think of practicable application and I look at PBS. Label it anyway you want, I'm convinced PBS (whatever their influence) is a great channel option for American people. If the channel is lost or has to sell out to corporations, it would be a shame and bad thing for our society (on a small scale, this isn't national security stuff)
I'm just doing some quick math based on the facts posted in the thread. PBS is supported 85% by viewers. PBS gets $456M from the gov't. From that math, PBS costs $3.04B a year to run. That seems awfully high, but does anyone have comparative numbers for, say, the WB or something?
The $3B figure is what I see it costing PBS to run. Most of it is directed to the local stations, FWIW.
Like it would somehow kill the integrity of PBS to run a commercial or two before and after each show so the taxpayers wouldn' have to foot the bill?
C'mon, Denny! They put the actual QUOTE in the quotation marks. That you thought the entire passage was a quote is your basic lack of grammar skills. Ed O.
With the standard that they have set, their model of public funding, one would have to believe that they would be fine. One point to take into consideration is, when PBS really took off, it was in the early 70s, when the average TV set picked up, what? three or four channels? Is there really anything that they do better than anyone else? For the most part, I dont think I am being unfair to say that they are left to extreme left, and have always found it ironic that the very people in office that continued support, were getting bashed on air.
Regarding PBS, I have a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude. I'd really rather focus on those than areas where people are generally very dissatisfied with the quality of service delivered by our government. I have two friends who are doctors at the local VA. When I'd made sneering remarks about cadavers laying around in the VA hallways, one of them pointed me toward this article, which was a fascinating example of what can happen in government reform if people ditch the "big government/small government" argument and focus on improving service. It's really a great read, and an inspiring article about how we can think differently about government.
