PBS Funding

[relenemiller]

But, then again.....blushing is a thing of the past, right



Subjective observation, Gavin, IMO. What possible good can come out of cleavage exposusre to a young child? I guess there is something to be said for "moral relevancy."

[chuckr]

Sorry Judy but in this case the voters gave the power to Republicans and their quest to cut spending and not just on the 'big ticket' programs.
PBS is a quality program and I'm a fan of it but with the advances in technologies and the plethora of programming on television and now on the Internet, it's shares have dwindled. Not many people see a need for something that doesn't speak for them nor to them.
People are going to start realizing that those spending cuts they voted for are going to hurt. You just found out sooner then later.

[philunderwood]

Reducing the size and cost of government doesn’t mean we’ll have to do without all of these great things the left is crying about. If there is a need or demand for something, the free market or private charities will fill the need; and they’ll do it far more efficiently and fairly than government does now.

["Q"]

Judy, I will agree with you that I never approved of our government spending money on foreign aid. I never will.

I also agree with you that there is some quality programming on PBS. I grew up on Sesame Street, The Electric Company, 321 Science, Nova, and other educational programs.

I disagree that they will simply disappear without government funding. If the program is in demand, and has educational value, I have a hard time believing that it won't find another sponsor.

The bottom line is the government is nearly broke. That needs to be the priority. Many things are going to have to go away to fix the problems that our government has created. I'm quite sure there will be things near and dear to me that will be affected before this is over. PBS is in the crosshairs now and mainly because of their bias and the Juan Williams firing. I think our government could cut elsewhere as well but, I am glad to hear that at least cuts are starting. They would be better off in my opinion, to cut 105 of Federal spending in every department across the board. EVERY single department, including SSI, Defense, Salaries, etc. This fiscal mess needs to be fixed and the sooner the better.

As for any personal remarks, from my screen, both you and Doug appear to be "snitty" with each other. Both can calm down and just agree to disagree. There isn't a winner and a loser here. All of us will never see eye to eye on every subject.

Have a great day!

[chuckr]

Feb 16, 2011 11:44:04 GMT -5 philunderwood said:

Reducing the size and cost of government doesn’t mean we’ll have to do without all of these great things the left is crying about. If there is a need or demand for something, the free market or private charities will fill the need; and they’ll do it far more efficiently and fairly than government does now.

First off it isn't the left that is crying ( they object not cry), secondly the free market and charities do not or can not always fill the needs that is why they and private citizens will turn to government for funds, the need is greater than they are capable of handling.
Free markets will not do anything unless there is enough demand to make it profitable for them to do so. Charities depend on the generousity of others and the need is always greater than the funds they have or they would not be campaigning so hard for it all the time.
Just because someone does not like something doesn't mean it has no worth to someone else.

[philunderwood]

"First off it isn't the left that is crying ( they object not cry), secondly the free market and charities do not or can not always fill the needs that is why they and private citizens will turn to government for funds, the need is greater than they are capable of handling."

If there aren't enough funds for the free market to fill a need, there sure aren't enough funds for the government to fill it. Especially when you consider the waste and inefficiency that notoriously goes along with government programs.

Could it be that that’s the reason the government is on the verge of bankruptcy?

[chuckr]

If there aren't enough funds for the free market to fill a need, there sure aren't enough funds for the government to fill it. Especially when you consider the waste and inefficiency that notoriously goes along with government programs.

Could it be that that’s the reason the government is on the verge of bankruptcy?

Free market doesn't lack the funds as much as the venture would lack profitability. They are not going to take on a venture that has little or no profit, they will ask the government to do it or at least help with it. If you read further in my statement you see the distinction.
The waste and inefficiency is what needs to be addressed not addressing government programs as wasteful and inefficient and therefore cutable. There is big distinction there.


The reason government is on the verge of bankruptcy as you put it is not because of the programs themselves it is the lack of will by the legislators to properly fund them in the first place. They did not pay for the programs through the collection of revenue but by borrowing for a very long time now. Both parties did that and they keep cutting the revenue stream.

[relenemiller]

"Q"

"They would be better off in my opinion, to cut 105 of Federal spending in every department across the board. EVERY single department, including SSI, Defense, Salaries, etc."

Why and where would you suggest we cut in these fields, "Q"?

Defense....as in salaries or the simple intangible waste that defense creates?

Salaries....whose? Govt.?

SSI..? My husband worked 56 of his 72 years.....his Social Security should be cut?

Maybe I'm not understanding what areas specifically you want to cut in these federal avenues

[Doug Loss]

You almost got it, Chuck: "Just because someone does not like something doesn't mean it has no worth to someone else. " When this is the case, then "it" needs to be paid for by "someone else," those for whom it has worth. This is not a difficult concept; you have to work very hard to not understand it.

[Doug Loss]

Sure there's a winner and a loser here, Q. If public broadcasting gets defunded, Judy definitely loses. If it continues, the rest of us lose, at least a little.

[Doug Loss]

Actually Relene, yes, in the long run SSI and Medicare must be cut. Otherwise, we go the way of Greece. These entitlements will be cut, either voluntarily and in a managed way or involuntarily by their collapse. Which would you prefer?

["Q"]

Doug, my "winner and loser" comment was with regard to the discussion. There ins't going to be a winner or loser regarding the argument whether to fund PBS or not. You should be able to understand that.

Relene, if you understand how a budget works then, every department should cut its overall budgeted allotment by 10%. I don't care how they do it or what they cut from each department. Just cut over all spending by 10% at a minimum.

I would also like to see a balanced budget amendment so government can only spend what they take in each year. The only exceptions in my opinion should be for national defense and only during a time of war. The other would be for a national disaster. Those should be the only things we go into debt for.

The government is deeply indebted to China and other undesirable countries. It has to stop.

[Doug Loss]

Of course I understand that. There won't be a winner or loser to the argument because it is at base an emotional and philosophical argument, not a logical one.

[relenemiller]

Doug and "Q"....please know that I am the first standing in line to make necessary sacrifices to see us get out of debt. My father and my husband both are military people, lifers. I saw more waste, just as a bystander than I care to recall. It is a shame. The problem I'm having (and I'm not an economist) is considering SSI as an entitlement. Everyone of us has worked, and put more than our share of SSI into the system. I have a difficult time understanding that (and yes I know about the baby boomers) the deposits made over long periods of time have not been managed better. It's beyond me, why SSI is considered an entitlement, when it's been deposited. That equates to, at least in my mind, one of us putting money into our savings account, and the bank mismanages (in this case the fed's) the deposits made by people, and then tells us that sorry, the money is gone. Bear with me, economist thinking is not my strength...but this seems like a no brainer. We have politicians retiring after one term offices and getting paid an additional salary for the remainder of their lives, while we have police forces and EMT persons working at substandard wages, if not volunteers and or cut of jobs. What's wrong with this picture? Where do the cuts begin? I'm not speaking to taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor, so please don't read that into this. I am trying to understand that perhaps the biggest waste we have in our country is Washington, period! If we are going to reduce the amount of spending, let's start with those who spend it. This goes to the same old story.....if I spend your money....it doesn't matter how much I spend...now...if I'm spending mine, the purchase price of an item drastically changes. Drug and Alcohol programs and federally funded abortions...come on....not to mention medicaid. What happened to stand on your own two feet and don't extract more from the nanny state? I see an entitlement as something someone wants because they believe they are entitled to it (earning is not part of the equasion).

[philunderwood]

If entitlements are cut it doesn’t have to be old people losing their SS and Medicaid. People who are now dependent on it would be grand fathered in and those close to drawing it would also receive it. An option should be offered for younger individuals that would give them a means of preparing themselves for retirement. The same goes for various welfare programs, but there should be an ending somewhere.

Government doesn’t create wealth, the private sector does. In fact the few enterprises government controls, like Amtrak, Fannie and Freddy and the post office constantly require large infusions of private sector money to keep them afloat.

The only way government gets money is through taxes, printing more of it (inflation) or borrowing it. In each case the money is taken from the private sector, which reduces the private sector’s ability to expand and create jobs and wealth. The only jobs government creates are government jobs which increases the cost of government even more.

[chuckr]

Government doesn’t create wealth, the private sector does. No they just create an environment were even more great wealth can be generated and that takes money. It is invested back into the private sector. Government has been great with the military complex in this country. Now there is waste and inefficiency.


In each case the money is taken from the private sector, which reduces the private sector’s ability to expand and create jobs and wealth. Which the government gives back to the private sector via education, infrastructure, protection, and yes entitlements. You make it sound like government keeps it all for themselves which is the what the private sector wants to do, keep it for themselves.

[Doug Loss]

Chuck, you show that you have no idea of where wealth comes from. You are absolutely, 100% wrong in your assertions.

[leisuresuitlarry]

I wish the government would just stop funding all programs. Get everyone off the government tit cold turkey. Bam! Done. Pay off the debt, and start from scratch and only use taxes for shit they're suppose to be used for.

[philunderwood]

We’re asked to believe that government forcibly extracts wealth from the private sector, redistributes it to favored constituencies, passes all sorts of rules and regulations that favor certain special interests, and hires many more bureaucrats to “manage” it all and the private sector is supposed to gain from this. It takes a certain mindset to believe that nonsense.

[philunderwood]

Jose, I don’t think we’ll see a cold turkey change in the way government operates, but we can strive for incremental changes in the right direction. We didn’t get where all at once and we’re not going to correct our problems that way either.