Agree Vicky,Lets get rid of ALL taxpayer subsidies for businesses.
I am fine with stopping funding for NPR. But, in doing that, lets get rid of
subsidies for Oil and tax writeoffs for corporations.If we cut out
ALL taxpayer subs to business, the lobbying would be reduced greatly.And, until we get the money out of our politics, nothing else really
matters.Let me say that again.UNTIL we get ALL the BIG
money, (corporate, union and private) out of our election process, NOTHING
else matters and NOTHING will change. We will continue to have our politicians
bought and paid for.Stop picking and choosing which tax subsidies
should go. ALL or NOTHING. I choose ALL.
The problem is not the programming. The subsidies are not for the programming.
They are for the private stations providing PBS services in lower populated
areas. Areas that would not have access to the PBS programming. Not everything
of value is provided privately. There is no free enterprise with monopolies
dominating everything from banking to communication. What would our world be
with only WalMarts to shop?
First of all the Corporation for Pulic Broadcasting is a creation of Congress
and funded by congress for the express purpose of encourgaging public
broacasting..so of course the CPB gets most of it's money from the
government. Secondly NPR, PBS, are radio and television networks formed by the
CPB and only receive part of their funding (around 15%) from CPB. The rest
comes from prvate fund raising. Sesame Street is a non profit
educational program and it's only connection to federal funds is through
the PBS stations it airs on and amounts to something like 1% of its budget. So
this letter is a bunch of noise about nothing.Public Broadcasting is
probably one of the single most important things this country can do to help
promote an informed electorate
So, Vicki, I assume you also oppose the $12 billion in subsidies that government
gives to oil companies?
Mr. Romney says he will cut government by 3-1/2% of GDP, or about 500 billion
dollars, but the only cuts he has actually described are to NPR and Planned
Parenthood. In terms of government spending those two programs consume the
equivalent of the change you keep in your car's ashtray. In other words,
virtually meaningless.I'm open to voting for a candidate who
will cut federal spending, but not for a candidate who won't tell us what
What is missing in all these comments is that PBS was just an EXAMPLE of what
should be considered for a reduction or elimination of government funding. The
list of what the federal government meddles in, either by funding or regulating,
is as monstrous as the budget. It is not about PBS and Big Bird.
That is just a distraction.The whole point Romney was making was
that we need to look at the budget item by item and decide if each is worth
going further in debt to fund it. The problem is that as soon as any
candidate, or already elected person, suggests any place to consider a trim or
cut, the interest parties start the attacks on that person.As far as
I am concerned, we need to put the whole budget on the table and look for every
possible place to trim or cut, and do it with the good of the country as a whole
as the top priority. If we don't, we will just spend and borrow our way to
being the latest world power to mightily fall.
The biggest problem is the question - why is the government funding any kind of
radio or television? When the government is involved in this kind of enterprise
bias is certainly suspect and has proved to be so in the case of PBS. If the
amount of PBS funding is so small certainly it won't be missed. Roland -
the president is not a dicttor and can;t make decisions on what can or can;t be
funded. Romney understands that - unlike Obama who runs the government by
illegal executive orders. Romney know that all cuts must be decided by congress
but I agree with Christian. 'It is not about PBS and Big Bird. That is just
a distraction.The whole point Romney was making was that we need to look at the
budget item by item and decide if each is worth going further in debt to fund
it.The problem is that as soon as any candidate, or already elected person,
suggests any place to consider a trim or cut, the interest parties start the
attacks on that person.'
So lcg, and christian..if that's what Romney meant..why didn't he say
it? Obama has actually said that very thing on almost every single stump
speech. He uses the words not usefull. Secondly lcg executive orders are not
illegal. Every President uses them. This is just more of the right wing babble
and hate mongoring.
Well pragmatistferlife, Romney does say that, but you won't listen this
time either. He made the case for making cuts throughout the budget, and he was
ASKED at the debate for examples. He had 2 minutes, so clearly covering every
federal budget item was not an options, so he put 2 examples on the table. Then
commenced all the criticism, which is partly why he was pressed for examples.
There are so many people who don't really want to look at solutions. They
just want to complain and blame. Do you want to look for solutions?
Or just find a reason to hate someone?
"Big Bird" or my family? Which is more important? To the liberals, Big
Bird rides high. He is the one to save. His/her interests are the one to
save.When did we ever give "Big Bird" pre-emptive status
over our families? When did we tell government to sacrifice us so that "Big
Bird" could live?
We need an alternative to what a few rich CEOs think that Americans should
consume. PBS provides an alternative to them. I place my vote for continuing
to fund PBS and other entities like it. I place my vote for continued taxation
to support them. I also vote to maintain or even increase taxation for schools
and even state-supported courses in college.
Our constitution says that government(s) should "protect and defend" its
citizens. Where does authority for controlling their education and welfare come