Mitt Romney, the bane of Sesame Street

@Linkat,

PBS has been more than just "nice to have" as has been said many times already. It does a lot of good with very little federal spending; most of its funding comes from private sources through fund raising and telephones. In terms of real dollars we are talking $1.35 per American per year. Sesame Street does not even receive federal funding. Money from Sesame Street toys do not even go to PBS, but directly to Sesame Street Workshop.

Romney May 'Like Big Bird,' Too Bad He Doesn't Know Sesame Doesn't Receive PBS Funding

Take up a real argument for cutting the deficit to feed the children rather than this bogus one.

0 Replies

@Linkat,

Linkat wrote:

And what problems does printing more money make? Makes things worse - it is a short term solution to a long term problem -

We've been printing more money for quite some time; and yet, we haven't seen the predicted rise in Inflation which is always the scary ghost posited to happen when we do... our bonds still are paying record low rates.

I agree that we have a long-term budget problem, but it can only be solved by cutting spending in MEANINGFUL ways, and raising taxes a MEANINGFUL amount. Tinkering around the edges, with programs that people find helpful and cost practically nothing, is useless and just a way of dodging responsibility for actually doing something productive.

In this case, coming from Romney, it's incredibly transparent. The man has pledged to both cut taxes and RAISE military spending over the next four years; getting rid of PBS funding will do nothing to stop the disaster that's going to cause.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Linkat,

Quote:

Whether you believe it or not - ask someone who is unemployed - we do have a slight problem with owing just a wee bit much. Doesn't it make sense to cut spending where ever you can. Don't you cut spending at home if say you owe too much and lose your job? Wouldn't you cut out things that are necessary - say cable?

Let's see.

Gas and Oil companies get $4 billion a year in subsidies.
PBS gets $445 million.

Which is more like cutting cable if you are trying to balance your budget?
You are suggesting the family reduce their water use by one glass a day while getting a larger cable service.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

In this case, coming from Romney, it's incredibly transparent. The man has pledged to both cut taxes and RAISE military spending over the next four years; getting rid of PBS funding will do nothing to stop the disaster that's going to cause.

Yeah, that's really the main point.

I'm all for reducing the deficit and spending responsibly.

PBS is way too small of a cost, and way too much bang for the buck, to be the place to look for balancing the budget.

Defense budget, raising taxes on people making over $250,000 a year, that's the low-hanging fruit.

You can't have it both ways, as Romney is attempting to.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/527832_533386060024185_1328007525_n.jpg

1 Reply

@sozobe,

lol

0 Replies

@Linkat,

Linkat wrote:

I agree that PBS funding isn't going to help - but why is the government supporting this?

Because PBS is producing a public service, because it produces good value for the money, and because private TV channels under-serve minorities and low-income viewers. (In other words, they focus on viewers with money to spend on their advertisers' products.)

Linkat wrote:

I think in times when there is a recession you do need to consider cutting where ever you can - is it necessary to fund PBS? I'd rather use that money to feed people.

You are starting from a wrong premise here. Recessions occur because there's a shortage of spending to go around, not a shortage of resources to spend money on. Accordingly, a further drop in government spending would make the recession worse, not better. Indeed, Romney acknowledges this when he warns, correctly, that cuts in the defense budget would be disastrous for the job market. But do we really need to stimulate the economy by acquiring more resources for killing people? I'd rather spend the money on PBS.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

I thought his message was clear; he loves to fire people. That's what he did at Bains Capital.

0 Replies

@Linkat,

What you're suggesting doesn't make any sense. In the first place, the amount saved will be miniscule and will will harm our children's education, and in the second place we give billions to other countries and subsidies to big oil and farmers.

Where's your priorities?

0 Replies

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/536254_10151264440276753_461262908_n.jpg

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

For no other reason than the fact that we can - and do - print more money when we need it.
Cycloptichorn

Indeed we do. Indeed we do.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

But do we really need to stimulate the economy by acquiring more resources for killing people? I'd rather spend the money on PBS.

Amen, so would I.

1 Reply

@firefly,

That's one of the major issues about the republicans that are in direct contradiction to their "every life is precious" meme. They'd rather spend billions on warfare than universal health care.

0 Replies

Mitt Romney, the bane of Sesame Street

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know