OT: Michael Vick now owns a dog

[Bemular]

As long as I'm understanding what you mean by "subsidies" then yes, I am against all of them.



I'm not willing to pay a penny to fund PBS. And almost nobody would if they weren't forced to. Actually, PBS got 445 Million, not 140.

The country is beyond broke, and irresponsible a-holes want to spend tax money on crap like this.

I think Doobie is talking about a one-year subsidy - Isn't the $445M you are quoting here a 2-year subsidy?

 

[Bemular]

I'm certainly not an advocate of subsidizing with tax dollars any self-sustaining entity. But, mentioning in a presidential debate the need to cut a line-item that amounts to ~643/1000th of a single percent (0.00643%) of the budget, and one that actually provides a social and economic benefit is just another glaring example of the ignorance and hypocrisy that is pervasive within certain members of our political community.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

Quite clearly the agenda against PBS is based on the whole liberal bias charade. GOPers don't like the perceived bias - you know, things like treating global warming seriously, not waving the flag during wars, real crazy liberal stuff - so they want to shut it down.

The one thing you know its *not* about is wasted spending, considering the numbers involved and the actual utility of public broadcasting.

 

[Bemular]

Quite clearly the agenda against PBS is based on the whole liberal bias charade. GOPers don't like the perceived bias - you know, things like treating global warming seriously, not waving the flag during wars, real crazy liberal stuff - so they want to shut it down.

The one thing you know its *not* about is wasted spending, considering the numbers involved and the actual utility of public broadcasting.

Nicely stated!

 

[MHSL82]

I'm certainly not an advocate of subsidizing with tax dollars any self-sustaining entity. But, mentioning in a presidential debate the need to cut a line-item that amounts to ~643/1000th of a single percent (0.00643%) of the budget, and one that actually provides a social and economic benefit is just another glaring example of the ignorance and hypocrisy that is pervasive within certain members of our political community.

I agree. I really didn't get the point of Romney mentioning PBS, especially Big Bird. What were they thinking? "Let's get something a lot of people love from their childhood and trash it. They'll certainly vote for us then." It'd be like Obama running on a platform to close NASA. Sure, he could do it, and they have lost some funding, but why mention it in a debate? It's not like a majority of people who are undecided suddenly think, "wow, finally someone who will stand up to governmental subsistence and make viewers like you pay for their broadcasting." Perhaps people who already were against funding for television might think it was a good example, but for unaffiliated, non-sophisticated voters, it couldn't have any positive results, imo. Heck, even for sophisticated voters who know how much it costs, like yourself, don't see it as the obstacle to a clean budget.

The bottom line is republicans are going to vote republican and democrats will vote democratic. They need to find things that undecided voters will cling to. Maybe some conservatives are passive aggressive enough to say they'll vote for Obama, the enemy, if Romney doesn't show how extreme right he is? Doesn't seem likely, but I keep hearing people talk about Romney not appealing to GOP principles, what's their alternative? Obama? Ron Paul (wasted vote)? Overall, though I think the threat of switching sides is lesser than the risk of losing undecided voters. There are a lot of Big Bird supporters who don't know who they are voting for yet. Specifics weren't necessary.

 

[MHSL82]

As long as I'm understanding what you mean by "subsidies" then yes, I am against all of them.



I'm not willing to pay a penny to fund PBS. And almost nobody would if they weren't forced to. Actually, PBS got 445 Million, not 140. NPR got about the same. And are you willing to pay everyone's share who doesn't want to pay for them? Because that would probably be about $444 million for both PBS and NPR.

The country is beyond broke, and irresponsible a-holes want to spend tax money on crap like this.

No comment on PBS and its funding, because you guys know and care more about it than I do, but I didn't see where the benefit was in mentioning PBS in the debate. At least without mentioning the cost. Because knee-jerk reaction of probably a majority of voters is "I loved PBS." Without knowing the cost, these people couldn't come to the conclusion people like you come to unless they just assumed it was a lot. I understand that if you add up a lot of unnecessary programs it comes out to a lot, but that could have been said without mentioning PBS. If there's PBS bias against Romney, I wonder why? Though I suppose people say there was a bias anyway.

I won't contribute money to PBS over the amount already paid by taxes until they bring back Mr. Rogers, Reading Rainbow, Magic School Bus, Arthur, Wishbone, and Bill Nye the Science Guy for my kids. All of them being back? Never. So no money for those pledge drives from me besides taxes.

 

[Bemular]

I agree. I really didn't get the point of Romney mentioning PBS, especially Big Bird. What were they thinking? "Let's get something a lot of people love from their childhood and trash it. They'll certainly vote for us then." It'd be like Obama running on a platform to close NASA. Sure, he could do it, and they have lost some funding, but why mention it in a debate? It's not like a majority of people who are undecided suddenly think, "wow, finally someone who will stand up to governmental subsistence and make viewers like you pay for their broadcasting." Perhaps people who already were against funding for television might think it was a good example, but for unaffiliated, non-sophisticated voters, it couldn't have any positive results, imo. Heck, even for sophisticated voters who know how much it costs, like yourself, don't see it as the obstacle to a clean budget.

The bottom line is republicans are going to vote republican and democrats will vote democratic. They need to find things that undecided voters will cling to. Maybe some conservatives are passive aggressive enough to say they'll vote for Obama, the enemy, if Romney doesn't show how extreme right he is? Doesn't seem likely, but I keep hearing people talk about Romney not appealing to GOP principles, what's their alternative? Obama? Ron Paul (wasted vote)? Overall, though I think the threat of switching sides is lesser than the risk of losing undecided voters. There are a lot of Big Bird supporters who don't know who they are voting for yet. Specifics weren't necessary.

Wow! THAT should be in a widely publicized blog or a short piece in some political mag. Brilliant points - Brilliantly stated! Nicely Done '82!

 

[NinerSickness]

I didn't see where the benefit was in mentioning PBS in the debate.

I thought that's what we were discussing. Isn't Big Bird PBS?

And yes, conservatives don't like the liberal slant at PBS. But imagine if tax money went to subsidize Sean Hannity's TV show (which I've never seen; I don't own a TV). I'd be pissed about that too (as I'm sure you would).

When there U.S. has already borrowed 15+ trillion dollars, it's essentially like a college student who cries to his parents that he needs more money for school & goes out & spends $100 on a tatoo.

I really didn't get the point of Romney mentioning PBS, especially Big Bird. What were they thinking? "Let's get something a lot of people love from their childhood and trash it.

I absolutely get it. There's a difference between trashing something and saying tax dollars shouldn't pay for it. I went to Starbucks to get a tea for someone today. They provide a great product, and people love it. However, if I had to provide one red cent out of my paycheck to subsidize that place, I'd have nothing but contempt for Starbucks and anyone who voted for that crap. Also, subsidizing it would cause the prices to go up (supply and demand) like it does to everything else.

 

[MHSL82]

I thought that's what we were discussing. Isn't Big Bird PBS?

And yes, conservatives don't like the liberal slant at PBS. But imagine if tax money went to subsidize Sean Hannity's TV show (which I've never seen; I don't own a TV). I'd be pissed about that too (as I'm sure you would).

When there U.S. has already borrowed 15+ trillion dollars, it's essentially like a college student who cries to his parents that he needs more money for school & goes out & spends $100 on a tatoo.

I absolutely get it. There's a difference between trashing something and saying tax dollars shouldn't pay for it. I went to Starbucks to get a tea for someone today. They provide a great product, and people love it. However, if I had to provide one red cent out of my paycheck to subsidize that place, I'd have nothing but contempt for Starbucks and anyone who voted for that crap. Also, subsidizing it would cause the prices to go up (supply and demand) like it does to everything else.

I'm not saying it doesn't make sense or that money should be spent on something that can fund itself. I get why he's against it, too. My point is that the debate is one of the only things some voters watch, pay attention, or read about. I just don't think the voters he's trying to convince will get past the "OMG it's big bird!" to get to the points you make. Maybe I under-estimate those watching the debate. If that's the case, carry on.

I just thought the point could be made that reducing the expenditures is just as important as, if not more than, raising the revenues. Find something that sounds absurd to the average person and mention that. PBS is not something that I think the average undecided voter is going to get mad at and sign on to Romney's cuts. It's not the best thing to represent rampant spending, even if one dollar, in your view, is too much. You'd have to agree that PBS is not all that we are spending money on that we don't need to, right? Let's brainstorm, what else could he have identified instead? (Can't be education like you're against, because that has too many supporters to take on right now.)

 

[NinerSickness]

I actually don't think most people even know PBS & NPR are publicly funded. You're right that it's not something the average undecided voter ponders, but maybe they will now that the Big Bird ad's are being put out there.

And yes, there is a TON of pork in the budget. This would be a nice start, but there's a long way to go. The budget is so huge that few people on earth can even track all the nonsense in it. Getting rid of earmarks would go a long way. If they passed a balanced budget ammendment, it would force them to prioritize more responsibly & get rid of all the superfluous stuff.

And for the record, I'm not against "education." I'm against the one size fits all, cookie cutter monopoly forced upon society known as public school. The money gets sucked into gold-plated pensions and an army of unneccesary bureaucrats, which is why it's so expensive (and the ratios of kids to teachers are so high). I support vouchers.

 

[MHSL82]

I actually don't think most people even know PBS & NPR are publicly funded. You're right that it's not something the average undecided voter ponders, but maybe they will now that the Big Bird ad's are being put out there.

And yes, there is a TON of pork in the budget. This would be a nice start, but there's a long way to go. The budget is so huge that few people on earth can even track all the nonsense in it. Getting rid of earmarks would go a long way. If they passed a balanced budget ammendment, it would force them to prioritize more responsibly & get rid of all the superfluous stuff.

And for the record, I'm not against "education." I'm against the one size fits all, cookie cutter monopoly forced upon society known as public school. The money gets sucked into gold-plated pensions and an army of unneccesary bureaucrats, which is why it's so expensive (and the ratios of kids to teachers are so high). I support vouchers.

Sorry I was a bit lazy with my categorization of your view on education. I remember your voucher system proposal pretty well and wouldn't think you were against education. That was lazy shorthand for the current system of education funding; will rephrase in the future.

 

[wartyOne]

SCREW VICK BECAUSE HE OWNS A DOG!!!!!

Oh, wait, sorry. I just now caught up. How'd this discussion get focused on Big Bird? Seriously. Talk about totally highjacking a thread.



Llamas for everybody.

 

[iHATEdodgers]

Quote:
Originally Posted by NinerSickness
By virtue of being Vick's dog, this is already the most overrated dog in the country.

How many bones has he fumbled?



I literally laughed out loud at these... Good way to start the morning thanks!



Edit: stoopid multi quote work damn you!

 

[Bemular]

Quote:
Originally Posted by NinerSickness
By virtue of being Vick's dog, this is already the most overrated dog in the country.

How many bones has he fumbled?



I literally laughed out loud at these... Good way to start the morning thanks!



Edit: stoopid multi quote work damn you!

Now THAT was funny!