Romney Hates Big Bird

[Smallc]

Romney will cut spending if elected next year.

That is just a possibility, like all of the other things you listed. Even if he's elected, it isn't a certainty.

[Moonlight Graham]

Is no one able to prioritize ? $280 million is likely LESS than the overrun on some defense department projects. When reviewing a restaurant bill of $100, this is the equivalent of asking about an error of one CENT. Meanwhile, somebody ordered a $20 sandwich.

Every cent that isn't essential should be cut. Sesame St would survive very well on its own on any other TV channel, and PBS would likely survive without gov subsidies. Yes 200 million isn't a lot in the grand scheme of things, but the US spends so much on so many things that the unessentials all must be reeled in.

The US debt problem is catastrophic. link

$16,000,000,000,000 (16 trillion) in national debt (that's $114,000 per working citizen, or $145,000 per income tax payer), compared to just 2.3 trillion in gov tax revenue. US debt surpasses US GDP! Total US debt is $185,000 per citizen! (counting personal debt + federal/state debt).

With such an emergency, and with interest going up every second on that debt, it must be confronted ASAP and PBS funding is a very minor (though quality) target of funding on the scale of essentials.

[Michael Hardner]

Every cent that isn't essential should be cut.

That's basic. How to go about it. You have a $100 restaurant bill that looks suspicious. What do you look at first.

With such an emergency, and with interest going up every second on that debt, it must be confronted ASAP and PBS funding is a very minor (though quality) target of funding on the scale of essentials.

As has been pointed out, it's tough to ignore the idealogical aspect of this. It's a small amount, but 12% of their funding. Let's cut 12% of defence industry subsidies then ? What would happen ?

There's a deficit because of the recession. The budget should be set to match some kind of weighted average of where the economy usually is, with more spending in down years. And we need to stop looking at those receiving funds as always being a problem. Big changes in technology cause huge economic changes in society. If you try to ignore them, then the system will fail completely.

[dre]

The US debt problem is catastrophic. link

$16,000,000,000,000 (16 trillion) in national debt (that's $114,000 per working citizen, or $145,000 per income tax payer), compared to just 2.3 trillion in gov tax revenue. US debt surpasses US GDP! Total US debt is $185,000 per citizen! (counting personal debt + federal/state debt).

Sure but all they owe is electronic tokens and they can manufacture them by the trillion.

In terms of real debt the US owes less now than it did 15 years ago.

[August1991]

Is no one able to prioritize ? $280 million is likely LESS than the overrun on some defense department projects. When reviewing a restaurant bill of $100, this is the equivalent of asking about an error of one CENT. Meanwhile, somebody ordered a $20 sandwich.

IOW, a cut of one cent in a $100 restaurant bill should not matter.

Michael, your argument cuts both ways. If one penny on a $100 restaurant bill is irrelevant, then why argue/object? What waiter/client would provoke a crisis over one cent?

----

IMHO, your analogy is simply wrong. The US federal government budget is not like a family budget; and it's not even like a restaurant bill when a bunch of friends eat together.

As an individual, it is hard/impossible to understand the collective. I reckon that Adam Smith, Charles Darwin, John von Neumann began to put us on the right path. We await another smart person to understand this question better.

Edited October 6, 2012 by August1991

[August1991]

Delete - double post.

Edited October 6, 2012 by August1991

[August1991]

The statement of borrowing money from China to pay for Big Bird is completely absurd. Seems like China owns about 25% of the 16 trillion dollars of the USA's total debt. I am sure cutting funding to Big Bird will balance those books. This is more talking to how messed up the current financial situation is.

I tend to agree. Whether the US federal government borrows from the Chinese, or Americans, what's the difference?

Or, what if the US federal government borrows from the US Fed? Again, what's the difference? Foreign, Chinese, domestic, intragovernmental. Does it matter that government borrows from foreigners? Mark Steyn seems to think so. IMHO, Steyn is wrong. Whether the bondholder is domestic or foreign, governments (the State) should honour its promises. After all, we pay taxes.

The US federal government spends more than it has, and it has been doing this for the past decade or so. Indeed, the US federal government has become a Ponzi scheme: the money coming in is based on promises of money going out.

At present, and for the past 10 years or so, the US federal government is not sustainable.

----

To return to the OP, the much greater question is what the US federal government is buying: Should American taxpayers pay for Big Bird?

Edited October 6, 2012 by August1991

[Shady]

No worries, the USA is going to start another war in order to give the economy a boost. Killing people overseas is way more important than educating people at home I guess. Some screwed up priorities.

Not as screwed up as your pathetic lying and/or ignorance. America spends more per student and more per patient than any other country in the world.

[Shady]

I tend to agree. Whether the US federal government borrows from the Chinese, or Americans, what's the difference?

Or, what if the US federal government borrows from the US Fed? Again, what's the difference? Foreign, Chinese, domestic, intragovernmental. Does it matter that government borrows from foreigners? Mark Steyn seems to think so. IMHO, Steyn is wrong. Whether the bondholder is domestic or foreign, governments (the State) should honour its promises. After all, we pay taxes.

The US federal government spends more than it has, and it has been doing this for the past decade or so. Indeed, the US federal government has become a Ponzi scheme: the money coming in is based on promises of money going out.

At present, and for the past 10 years or so, the US federal government is not sustainable.

----

To return to the OP, the much greater question is what the US federal government is buying: Should American taxpayers pay for Big Bird?

I would suggest that since Big Bird makes more money per year than Mitt Romney, they definitely shouldn't be subsidized by taxpayers. That should be something everyone should agree with. But apparently even that's "controversial."

[jacee]

Big Bird in Combat Gear...

[jacee]

I would suggest that since Big Bird makes more money per year than Mitt Romney, they definitely shouldn't be subsidized by taxpayers. That should be something everyone should agree with. But apparently even that's "controversial."

Big Bird's more worthy than Mitt Romney.

I know that you told Fox News this week that you were "completely wrong" for making that now infamous 47 percent comment,but probably only after you realized that it was a drag on your poll numbers. Your initial response was to defend it as "inelegantly stated" but essentially correct. That's not good,sir. Character matters. Big Bird wouldn't have played it that way. Do you really believe that Pennsylvania Avenue is that far away from Sesame Street?It shouldn't be.

Let me make it simple for you,Mr. Romney. I'm down with Big Bird. You pick on him, you answer to me.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/opinion/blow-dont-mess-with-big-bird.xml

[GostHacked]

Not as screwed up as your pathetic lying and/or ignorance. America spends more per student and more per patient than any other country in the world.

Does spending that amount of money guarantee results?

[Shady]

Does spending that amount of money guarantee results?

Nope. The systems the money gets poured into need to be reformed. But that has little to do with military spending as you suggested. Those are two completely seperate issues.

[GostHacked]

Nope. The systems the money gets poured into need to be reformed. But that has little to do with military spending as you suggested. Those are two completely seperate issues.

They are related issues in terms of overall federal budgets and reducing the debt load.

For the price of 1 B2 stealth bomber, you can fund PBS for almost 3 years.

[Shady]

They are related issues in terms of overall federal budgets and reducing the debt load.

For the price of 1 B2 stealth bomber, you can fund PBS for almost 3 years.

Nope, they're completely unrelated. Without reforming programs, you could pour all the money you want into them, and not see significant improvement. Like I've already said, America spends more per student and more per patient than ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. But doesn't get the same results. It's not that not enough money is being spent, it's how those programs are set up, and how the money is used. And PBS can survive on it's own. It doesn't need a dime of taxpayer money to carry on.

[Guest American Woman]

They are related issues in terms of overall federal budgets and reducing the debt load.

For the price of 1 B2 stealth bomber, you can fund PBS for almost 3 years.

They serve entirely different purposes; when a B2 stealth bomber is needed but not there, the idea that PBS will be funded for three years is of little use and/or comfort.

[Pliny]

They serve entirely different purposes; when a B2 stealth bomber is needed but not there, the idea that PBS will be funded for three years is of little use and/or comfort.

Besides that national security is a legitimate mandate of the federal government, Big Bird is not.

I do, however, think the American federal government is far too active globally than they need to be and thus spends far too much on their military. It would be a lot easier to fund them if the Feds got out of so many social issues that are better taken care of by State and local governments - Even education and healthcare. They used to have nothing to do with education until Carter created the DoE in the seventies and Mitt Romney is correct in saying his healthcare bill in Massachusetts has more legitimacy as a State program than a federal healthcare plan.

[Shady]

Besides that national security is a legitimate mandate of the federal government, Big Bird is not.

I do, however, think the American federal government is far too active globally than they need to be and thus spends far too much on their military. It would be a lot easier to fund them if the Feds got out of so many social issues that are better taken care of by State and local governments - Even education and healthcare. They used to have nothing to do with education until Carter created the DoE in the seventies and Mitt Romney is correct in saying his healthcare bill in Massachusetts has more legitimacy as a State program than a federal healthcare plan.

Exactly. Being in the television business isn't part of the core responsibilities of government, let alone funding an institution that has a million dollar CEO, and millionaire on-air personalities, and that can generate more than enough revenue on their own to continue their niche programming.

[Michael Hardner]

Exactly. Being in the television business isn't part of the core responsibilities of government, let alone funding an institution that has a million dollar CEO, and millionaire on-air personalities, and that can generate more than enough revenue on their own to continue their niche programming.

1) People who run large companies make a million dollars. That's a fact.

2) Education is a core responsibility of government.

I'm not sold that PBS is education vs. just 'media' though. There's good on both sides of this argument IMO.

[Shady]

1) People who run large companies make a million dollars. That's a fact.

2) Education is a core responsibility of government.

I'm not sold that PBS is education vs. just 'media' though. There's good on both sides of this argument IMO.

The point is, they have the means to continue their same programming, without a dime from taxpayers.

[Michael Hardner]

The point is, they have the means to continue their same programming, without a dime from taxpayers.

As I said, there are good things to be said for that. I like the idea of a strong PBS completely independent from Republican interference, if I may be permitted to show a bias here.

[punked]

Nope, they're completely unrelated. Without reforming programs, you could pour all the money you want into them, and not see significant improvement. Like I've already said, America spends more per student and more per patient than ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. But doesn't get the same results. It's not that not enough money is being spent, it's how those programs are set up, and how the money is used. And PBS can survive on it's own. It doesn't need a dime of taxpayer money to carry on.

You mean like how Obama reformed Medicare to get an extra 10 years out of it, by reducing payments and cheats to the system (one of which at one time was Mitt Romney) and Mitt wants to go back to the old system. To date Obama has saved a Billion from just catching cheats to the system.

I guess reform is only good when it is killing Big Bird and not when it saves 716 Billion dollars by cutting no care to Medicare. No wait you want that to be in its own box so you can say one thing about PBS out of one side of mouth and something else about Medicare our the other side right?

FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP. Shady the Flip Flopper now he is fliping in one thread on one topic and flopping in another on a different topic.

[Argus]

Who knows, but a guy who leads by example the way Romney does is exactly the kind of political leader we need on both sides of the 49th.

Give us a break. His salary is chump change to him. Are you suggesting we have only multimillionaires as political leaders?

[Argus]

As a matter of fact, Romney said that he liked Big Bird. The question is whether the American government should borrow from the Chinese to give Big Bird money.

I don't think they should. I think they should raise taxes so they can support a reasonable level of government.

[Argus]

Since you personally think you got benefit from PBS, then that item should not be cut?

When a nation is incurring trillion dollar deficits every year for 4 years, then something a little drastic has to be done.

You mean like cancelling the tax cuts they never should have put in place because they can't afford them?