Dennis Miller had a couple of tweets that got me rolling... @DennisDMZ Obama better hope a Kicked Ass is covered under Obamacare. @DennisDMZ Obama is being owned, refinanced and owned again! @DennisDMZ Obama is now looking for Ferdie Pacheco. "He's a bleeder...He's a bleeder!"
If Dennis Miller "has you rolling"... Well, I don't know what to say, really. Was that guy ever funny? He's just kind of... slimy.
This PBS issue has gone from a throw away idea to an intersting issue for me. Would you rather have programing like disney channel and cartoon network that are in no way funded by the gov't and thus our tax dollars. Or would you rather have programing like PBS, but have to pay for it? Part of me says let each person/family decide if they want a PBS station and have them pay for it. But then I think of families struggling and think PBS should be an option for all and not just for those who can afford it. I'm torn on it, but it sort of brings into picture if you want gov't to have more control over society. When that question is asked, it seems to be termed in a negative way. But gov't does a lot of good things for us and often the money they spend is worth it in my opinion . . . like PBS.
I grew up in England. As you probably know, they have the BBC that is funded by a "license fee" - that is, if you own a TV or radio you have to pay a certain amount that goes to the BBC. And NOT to any independent channels. But the independent channels exist, and make money. However, programming on the BBC is MUCH BETTER. Better educational stuff (BBC2 used to run programs for the "Open University" which was what it sounds like) better drama (Doctor Who, lots of the Masterpiece Theatre stuff) better news, basically just better. Precisely BECAUSE they didn't have to pander to advertisers. Like Monty Python? That's the BBC. Trust me, the comedy on the commercial channels was scrape-the-bottom-of-the-barrell shit. Of course, the commercial channels scream bloody murder about unfair competition, but they churn out the reality TV crap that enough people like to watch that they make money, but we also get actual quality stuff that is worth watching. With no ads. So the great British Public continues to endorse the BBC and governments that don't like it have to suck it. I watch PBS now and it's ALREADY mostly ads. Only they're "special" ads - "this program was brought to you commercial-free by Chuck-E-Cheese". It's bad enough as it is. Leave it the fuck alone. "The marketplace" does not produce the best product. It produces shit that a lot of people will watch because they don't know better. (Yeah, yeah, HBO. But let them try to fund a news organization on the size of the BBC.)
You really notice it in the news. American commercial news is utter shit. All of it. (This can't all be blamed on commercialism, I suppose, as Channel 4 news in England is pretty damn awesome. But PBS News is the best, just because it tries to cover non-trivial stuff and doesn't pander.)
Nice post, I enjoy the thought process you are employing. I dont think government funding is or would have anything to do wether or not PBS survives. BUT.. How about put it on cable? yeah, nice idea ToB, nice. First thought was for those poor people, to provide a quality programing optin, then I realized that no matter what neighbourhood you cruise through, most the kids have cell phones that can get online..is a relic from the 70s going to compete whatsoever? I do respect your opinion that PBS is worth funding. Some sacred cows will have to go, everyone has their own pet project, wy not start here. Let Turner fund the % that the Gov does at this point.
I really don't get the idea that the government shouldn't take money and spend it on good stuff that people wouldn't be able to provide on their own. Denny: you must be opposed to public education, right? And all our roads should be toll roads, presumably? I mean libertarians used to concede that the army had to be paid for by the government, but with Blackwater (or whatever the fuck they changed their name to) even that's being privatized. I pledge allegiance to the state of Walmart.
Like subsidies to farmers and oil companies? Or alternatively, why? Just exactly how large of a % of the federal budget do you think goes to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting? Seriously, without looking it up, tell me.
Its already posted in this thread, so.. point is to have private business pick up the tab, like I said, say Turner or who ever wants to pick up a proven product. Off subject, no I am not in favor of farm or any subsidies that have been in place too long. To pay a farmer to not grow a crop...well that was a great idea in the thirties, to show an aid farmers to halt the spread of the dust bowl (soil erosion). But that has outlived its purpose.. Why are we paying dairy farmers monies? am for looking at all these pork barrel bull shit programs.
Sure. Because a lot of Americans don't care for the work that it does, and because there are dozens of other channels that exist without federal subsidies, and because there's a very good chance that the effort could go on and make up for the gap in funding either by tightening its belt or by raising additional money. Ed O.
+1, though I can't imagine any politician having the balls to say it before being elected. Wish we could get stuff like that going in our country. I think we can pay for a lot to help people out, with money that's already spent and wasted on shit.
Quakers are pacifists. They still have to pay tax dollars that go to the military. Yes, but they don't do the same thing. By definition, no commercial station can do what a non-commercial station does. I think ads in childrens programming are particularly pernicious. And commercial stations are less adventurous because they're beholden to the whims of advertisers. There's a reason no other station produced Sesame Street. It has been doing that for years. Which is why (a) it's a huge red herring because, as Neil deGrasse Tyson put it: "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", and (b) personally I think it's already been ruined by said Chuck-E-Cheese bullshit. You know Romney doesn't give a shit about saving money because he's already said he wants to give the military more than they even want (so we can go back to thousand dollar toilet seats). No, this is a bone to the wingnut base who genuinely believe that Big Bird is a communist and Bert and Ernie promote homosexuality.
We've passed the tipping point where a politician can be successful by bringing up real, substantial cuts. There are too many voters dependent on the federal government spending, without having to pay a dime to support that spending. That number is about to pass 50% and become a majority. In my opinion, there is no turning back and it's just going to be a snowball effect from here.
by the way, the analogy Tyson didn't calculate out is that it's like deleting text files if you have a 60Meg text file. You have any of those?
The president of 'non-profit' PBS makes $632,233 in annual compensation. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but if PBS can provide lavish salaries for executives, it's a tough argument saying they need federal tax dollars to stay alive.
Television programming? That's something people do provide on their own without government. Education is a complex question. What does "public" mean? We have multiple tiers of education, with non-govt. owned being the finest, no? (That would be places like Harvard, Stanford, Yale, prep schools, etc.). And the more involved government has been with "public" education, the more it's declined from once being quite good to the point it doesn't graduate kids that can read. I would call Stanford a public school because it does allow anyone to apply. I'm not opposed to states and municipalities building public buildings and roads and the like. I'm not opposed to the feds building national highways. Things that are INFRASTRUCTURE like roads seem in the spirit of post office, the mint, the court system, etc. I'm not at all a fan of a big military or using it to do much besides defending our borders. And I don't mean keeping "illegals" out, but rather against a military invasion by some other country. Funny thing is Mook posted a reference to how the VA provides better care than medicare. While Obama and people on the left were drooling over single payer govt. option, I was posting on these boards (and elsewhere, like HuffPost) that govt. should open a VA type system and serve everyone. The idea is to provide health care, right? What does insurance have to do with health care? Health care is about hiring doctors and paying for medicine and beds and equipment and giving people access to doctors and nurses. I suggest this VA type system would charge people for their care, directly what it costs. So it's not a taxpayer funded anything, but a $10 flu shot and a $20 checkup and a $350 to deliver a child. Health insurance is so regulated by govt. you'd think they would be able to make it good by now (except government CAN'T). I mean, insurance companies issue policies that pay huge sums when people die - and everyone dies. That insurance isn't expensive. Neither is auto insurance. Just the insurance govt. focuses on.
