I think it is time to "kill Big Bird"

[go2church]

As a taxpayer, I want some of my dollars going to support PBS and NPR. That is not an issue for me.

Artists, poets, writers, movie makers, singers, etc. need an outlet that isn't just mainstream. Art in general makes us a better rounded society and because of that I don't mind supporting work that might not be "profitable" now but is still very valuable for the whole. It can't alway be about ratings.

 

[Salty]

As a taxpayer, I want some of my dollars going to support PBS and NPR. That is not an issue for me.

Artists, poets, writers, movie makers, singers, etc. need an outlet that isn't just mainstream. Art in general makes us a better rounded society and because of that I don't mind supporting work that might not be "profitable" now but is still very valuable for the whole. It can't alway be about ratings.

Then let it be done at the State or Commonwealth level - NOT the FED

 

[Alcott]

If I survived Lassie and Mr. Moose and Mr. Greenjeans coming to and end, anyone can survive that the demise of that stupid-looking 'bird' that's been around for-- how many decades?-- 4?

I've always been glad I was already about 9 when that sesame thing started and I never wanted to watch it.

 

[Arbo]

I say have him as the "guest of honor" for Thanksgiving.

 

[Revmitchell]

whether it is right or not to support PBS financially (and its not) we do not have the money. It makes no sense to give that kind of money out when we do not have it to give.

 

[targus]

As a taxpayer, I want some of my dollars going to support PBS and NPR. That is not an issue for me.

Artists, poets, writers, movie makers, singers, etc. need an outlet that isn't just mainstream. Art in general makes us a better rounded society and because of that I don't mind supporting work that might not be "profitable" now but is still very valuable for the whole. It can't alway be about ratings.

Fine - make a pledge then and get yourself a nice totebag or something.

Just don't require the rest of us to make an involuntary donation by means of our tax dollars.

 

[annsni]

Fine - make a pledge then and get yourself a nice totebag or something.

Just don't require the rest of us to make an involuntary donation by means of our tax dollars.

And you can get that nice totebag for a donation of only $150!!

 

[Revmitchell]

And you can get that nice totebag for a donation of only $150!!

Maybe they can use it to toe around their liberal opinion that silly stuff like PBS should be funded by the ta payers even when there is no money to do it.

 

[go2church]

Fine - make a pledge then and get yourself a nice totebag or something.

Just don't require the rest of us to make an involuntary donation by means of our tax dollars.

Those tote bags are hardly nice!

As part of a larger society we all have to "pay" for things we don't use or don't necessarily like but are overall beneficial to the whole.

Now I understand an argument could be made around the issue of "beneficial", but for me the pros outweigh the cons on this one.

 

[go2church]

It makes no sense to give that kind of money out when we do not have it to give.

This could also be said of the unnecessary wars we have pursued recently. Compared to the cost of war, Big Bird is a bargain and no one was blow up or sent home with missing limbs and absent minds.

 

[annsni]

This could also be said of the unnecessary wars we have pursued recently. Compared to the cost of war, Big Bird is a bargain and no one was blow up or sent home with missing limbs and absent minds.

The question is not to compare TV entertainment to national security but to see what is necessary and cut that which is not. Is PBS necessary? No. Is it nice? Yes. Could it get funding without the government involvement? Yes. MUST we spend tax dollars on a TV channel? No. It's really a no-brainer in my book.

 

[Salty]

The question is not to compare TV entertainment to national security but to see what is necessary and cut that which is not. Is PBS necessary? No. Is it nice? Yes. Could it get funding without the government involvement? Yes. MUST we spend tax dollars on a TV channel? No. It's really a no-brainer in my book.

:thumbsup: That and a whole slew of items that are in contradicition with the 10th amendment.

 

[LadyEagle]

BIG BIRD IS A MULTI-GENERATIONAL WELARE RECIPIENT!

Time to get off the public dole!!

 

[saturneptune]

If the government was going to support a TV channel, one would think it would be C-Span, but that station is run totally by private money. We should have never started supporting PBS, but in reality, its total budget would not make any noticable change in the deficit. I would be for cutting off all money to the UN and kicking them out of the USA before stopping money for Big Bird.

 

[Revmitchell]

The question is not to compare TV entertainment to national security but to see what is necessary and cut that which is not. Is PBS necessary? No. Is it nice? Yes. Could it get funding without the government involvement? Yes. MUST we spend tax dollars on a TV channel? No. It's really a no-brainer in my book.

It is a shame that has to be explained.

 

[Salty]

If the government was going to support a TV channel, one would think it would be C-Span, but that station is run totally by private money. We should have never started supporting PBS, but in reality, its total budget would not make any noticeable change in the deficit. I would be for cutting off all money to the UN and kicking them out of the USA before stopping money for Big Bird.

My understanding is that C-span is paid for by the Cable/satellite companies - which is private enterprise. A Cable company is not required to carry it. Free enterprise at its best

 

[go2church]

C Span is a non profit private company funded by a $6 (?) fee on your cable bill. Congress has mandated that C Span be carried by carried by cable companies.

 

[go2church]

The question is not to compare TV entertainment to national security but to see what is necessary and cut that which is not. Is PBS necessary? No. Is it nice? Yes. Could it get funding without the government involvement? Yes. MUST we spend tax dollars on a TV channel? No. It's really a no-brainer in my book.

Why is it either/ or and not both/ and? My point is more of a philosophical one then an economic one at this point considering we are deficit spending for our entire government.

No doubt PBS is an "extra" when you are in a deficit but in theory it is a good idea and should be supported. Then again we could find lots of "extras" in that scenario, not just PBS. I think it has popped up now because it has been a favorite whipping boy for politicians seeking election.

 

[targus]

No doubt PBS is an "extra" when you are in a deficit but in theory it is a good idea and should be supported.

I disagree that it is even good in theory.

PBS is simply another tool for the left to indoctrinate our children into their preferred culture...

Sesame Street has featured issues such as - childhood hunger, healthy school lunches, HIV/AIDS, bullying, anti-FOX NEWS, environmentalism.

One may take either side that one wishes on any of the above issues - however the point is that PBS and Sesame Street push one side - the left side.

This is well recognized biy even the left. For a while there was a call by the gay community to have Bert & Ernie get married on Sesame Street.

Apparently the produces recognized that was too far for even them.

 

[LadyEagle]

PBS and NPR will receive - count it - $444 million from taxpayers this year.

That ain't chump change.