Mitt Romney says he would cut federal funding for PBS to trim budget

Full story: The Washington Post

Though the debate in Washington about cutting federal funding for public television is ongoing, presidential candidate Mitt Romney said in an interview with Fortune magazine that he would cut the PBS subsidy from the federal budget.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 11 of11

“I'd rather be snowmobiling”

Since: Oct 07

8120'

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Aug 16, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The annual subsidy for PBS is only $444 million. The total federal budget for 2011 was $3.5 trillion. So cutting PBS entirely would create a whopping .01% savings. Good job, President Romney. Youíre a budget wizard! Letís say thereís some public outcry (and there will be) and Romney decides to only cut the PBS budget in half. Wow! A huge .006% savings!

If we cut all of the programs Romney named, the government would save around $2 billion. Thatís a savings of .05%. Again, itís an almost nonexistent reduction in the budget, but Romney and the Republicans make it seem as if these are massive, blood-sucking drains on the budget. Theyíre clearly not.

Obviously the point isnít to save money. The point is to kill PBS, which the Republicans have always hated because it actually educates the public without the taint of paid advertising. Without advertising, the content is devoid of corporate influence, whether itís news, entertainment or childrenís programming. Republicans would prefer that the public remains uneducated ó unless the educators are corporate charter schools and the Glenn Beck University. If voters are less educated, theyíre less likely to catch all of the lies and bumper-sticker superficiality thatís become the centerpiece of the Republican Party.
He wants

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Aug 16, 2012
 
you all to stay dumb and uninformed.
Dabney Carr

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Aug 16, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Good! The 1950's are over. There are hundreds of alternative TV networks now. PBS' time has passed. Federally-funded television is absolutely not needed.
Dabney Carr

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Aug 16, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

How about I come over to your house and star flushing 5-dollar bills down the toilet? I mean, it's such a small dollar amount that it won't even show up on the radar of your family budget, right?

The AMOUNT is immaterial. We should be eliminating any and ALL government waste!!
twostroketerror wrote:
The annual subsidy for PBS is only $444 million. The total federal budget for 2011 was $3.5 trillion. So cutting PBS entirely would create a whopping .01% savings. Good job, President Romney. Youíre a budget wizard! Letís say thereís some public outcry (and there will be) and Romney decides to only cut the PBS budget in half. Wow! A huge .006% savings!
If we cut all of the programs Romney named, the government would save around $2 billion. Thatís a savings of .05%. Again, itís an almost nonexistent reduction in the budget, but Romney and the Republicans make it seem as if these are massive, blood-sucking drains on the budget. Theyíre clearly not.
Obviously the point isnít to save money. The point is to kill PBS, which the Republicans have always hated because it actually educates the public without the taint of paid advertising. Without advertising, the content is devoid of corporate influence, whether itís news, entertainment or childrenís programming. Republicans would prefer that the public remains uneducated ó unless the educators are corporate charter schools and the Glenn Beck University. If voters are less educated, theyíre less likely to catch all of the lies and bumper-sticker superficiality thatís become the centerpiece of the Republican Party.

“GO BUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!”

Since: Dec 06

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Aug 16, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

That's more cutting than Obama did.
twostroketerror wrote:
The annual subsidy for PBS is only $444 million. The total federal budget for 2011 was $3.5 trillion. So cutting PBS entirely would create a whopping .01% savings. Good job, President Romney. Youíre a budget wizard! Letís say thereís some public outcry (and there will be) and Romney decides to only cut the PBS budget in half. Wow! A huge .006% savings!
If we cut all of the programs Romney named, the government would save around $2 billion. Thatís a savings of .05%. Again, itís an almost nonexistent reduction in the budget, but Romney and the Republicans make it seem as if these are massive, blood-sucking drains on the budget. Theyíre clearly not.
Obviously the point isnít to save money. The point is to kill PBS, which the Republicans have always hated because it actually educates the public without the taint of paid advertising. Without advertising, the content is devoid of corporate influence, whether itís news, entertainment or childrenís programming. Republicans would prefer that the public remains uneducated ó unless the educators are corporate charter schools and the Glenn Beck University. If voters are less educated, theyíre less likely to catch all of the lies and bumper-sticker superficiality thatís become the centerpiece of the Republican Party.
Dabney Carr

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Aug 16, 2012
 
PBS educates how? With NOVA?? The Antique Road Show??? Give me a damn break!! My kids learned far more from NATGEO, Science, Discovery and Animal Planet than they did watching PBS.

The only lies and superficiality here are coming from your empty arguments.
twostroketerror wrote:
The annual subsidy for PBS is only $444 million. The total federal budget for 2011 was $3.5 trillion. So cutting PBS entirely would create a whopping .01% savings. Good job, President Romney. Youíre a budget wizard! Letís say thereís some public outcry (and there will be) and Romney decides to only cut the PBS budget in half. Wow! A huge .006% savings!
If we cut all of the programs Romney named, the government would save around $2 billion. Thatís a savings of .05%. Again, itís an almost nonexistent reduction in the budget, but Romney and the Republicans make it seem as if these are massive, blood-sucking drains on the budget. Theyíre clearly not.
Obviously the point isnít to save money. The point is to kill PBS, which the Republicans have always hated because it actually educates the public without the taint of paid advertising. Without advertising, the content is devoid of corporate influence, whether itís news, entertainment or childrenís programming. Republicans would prefer that the public remains uneducated ó unless the educators are corporate charter schools and the Glenn Beck University. If voters are less educated, theyíre less likely to catch all of the lies and bumper-sticker superficiality thatís become the centerpiece of the Republican Party.

“I'd rather be snowmobiling”

Since: Oct 07

8120'

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Aug 16, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Dabney Carr wrote:
PBS educates how? With NOVA?? The Antique Road Show??? Give me a damn break!! My kids learned far more from NATGEO, Science, Discovery and Animal Planet than they did watching PBS.
The only lies and superficiality here are coming from your empty arguments.
<quoted text>
I know, it's tough in this modern world to actually watch & discuss an educational show with your children that isn't interrupted every 4.5 minutes by a Geico ad. I bet they all know what toys they 'need' for this school year though, right? Is that your version of home schooling? Is it my fault your children have the attention span of houseflies?
Have 'em watch another season of Animal Cops Detroit, Worlds Scariest Animal Attacks or Taboo and see how well they do on the SAT.
Dabney Carr

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Aug 16, 2012
 
You know nothing about my children, up to and including the fact they are both honors students -- one earning college credit while still in high school. PBS is government waste and you know it. You're just mad because that agenda driven mouthpiece for the democrat party is about to go the way of the dodo bird. Try and tell me Frontline isn't every bit as biased as 60 Minutes. And oh by the way... the rest of their programming sucks! Finnish saunas? Julia Child? Learn a lot from Antique roadshow do you?? Imbecile...
twostroketerror wrote:
<quoted text>
I know, it's tough in this modern world to actually watch & discuss an educational show with your children that isn't interrupted every 4.5 minutes by a Geico ad. I bet they all know what toys they 'need' for this school year though, right? Is that your version of home schooling? Is it my fault your children have the attention span of houseflies?
Have 'em watch another season of Animal Cops Detroit, Worlds Scariest Animal Attacks or Taboo and see how well they do on the SAT.

“I'd rather be snowmobiling”

Since: Oct 07

8120'

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Aug 16, 2012
 
Dabney Carr wrote:
You know nothing about my children, up to and including the fact they are both honors students -- one earning college credit while still in high school. PBS is government waste and you know it. You're just mad because that agenda driven mouthpiece for the democrat party is about to go the way of the dodo bird. Try and tell me Frontline isn't every bit as biased as 60 Minutes. And oh by the way... the rest of their programming sucks! Finnish saunas? Julia Child? Learn a lot from Antique roadshow do you?? Imbecile...
<quoted text>
I very happy for you and your little consumers. I didn't know Pawn Stars had a 201 course. Also, I don't see any of the edutainment channels you mentioned on my free over the air digital broadcast choices. Oh I should get cable? And the upgrade package?$100.00 bucks a month to get told what to buy, awesome. Then I can watch Faux news and get told what to think, too! By the sound of it though, you're more of a Rush kinda gal.
BTW, NOVA is underwritten by your friends at the David Koch Foundation.
Give a hoot, read a book.
Leo

Tulsa, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Aug 16, 2012
 
What a big man. God forbid he cut foreign aid to hostile nations like Pakistan and to dozens of other pissant nations that do nothing for us and save millions and millions. God forbid he put an end to a useless war that is doing nothing for us but killing our kids and draining us of billions each year. Oh no, don't dot hat stuff but pull the plug on some tiny radio stations and save a few bucks and then act like a big man.
Card Carrying Zionist
|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Aug 16, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

twostroketerror wrote:
The annual subsidy for PBS is only $444 million...
That's $444 million more than it should be.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 11 of11
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

29 Users are viewing the Entertainment Forum right now

Search the Entertainment Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
S.F. Jewish Film Festival capsules 13 min Alexey25 2
Kenny Chesney Announces His Only Show of 2014 1 hr Give Him a Brain 18
Group home makes at-risk girls family (Jun '10) 1 hr carroll p 173
Christian Kane loves Portland and Oklahoma and ... 2 hr Mary E Brewer 1
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 2 hr not a playa1965 305,060
Batman v Superman: Car chase planned for downto... 3 hr bensleys thoughts 1
MSNBC's Diaz-Balart Broadcasts from La Raza Con... 3 hr Yep2 4
•••
•••
•••