• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Mark Levin Is Going To Save Sesame Street.

I think that his high pitched helium nasal screaming voice would scare kids. But evidently, dolphins love it.
 
Big Bird will learn something about competing in the free market. Big Bird will learn something about individualism and supporting yourself. Big Bird will learn that if you work hard you usually won't need "free stuff" from the government. Further, Big Bird will learn that there is no such thing as "free-stuff"... everything has to be paid for by someone. Big Bird will learn that if you're going to cut the deficit, you have to cut spending and every little bit counts. PBS is over 26 years old, and is big and strong enough to take care of itself. In learning these, and other lessons, Big Bird will be a better bird for our children.
 
The budget for PBS is MINISCULE and doesn't even come to .000007%. This is yet another wedge issue the repugnicans like to harp on. How about cutting that $60 Billion Dollars that subsidize the oil companies that are ripping us off? But, if you really think that PBS is part of the reason we are going to budget hell, I'm gonna reach out and conclude that you are GULPING the crap called RIGHT WING talk radio. P.S. Maybe we should take care of our Vets a whole lot better too.
 
Cutting from the $60 billion to oil companies is fine by me. As I said, every little bit counts. You cut enough "little bits" and you've got something pretty big. PBS will survive without government subsidies. This whole thing about how miniscule the amount is does not impress me in the least. Every little bit counts.
 
johnbasalla said:
Big Bird will learn something about competing in the free market. Big Bird will learn something about individualism and supporting yourself. Big Bird will learn that if you work hard you usually won't need "free stuff" from the government. Further, Big Bird will learn that there is no such thing as "free-stuff"... everything has to be paid for by someone. Big Bird will learn that if you're going to cut the deficit, you have to cut spending and every little bit counts. PBS is over 26 years old, and is big and strong enough to take care of itself. In learning these, and other lessons, Big Bird will be a better bird for our children.
Click to expand...

This might be the best post I've ever seen on a message board. Says it all!
 
radiowizard101 said:
The budget for PBS is MINISCULE and doesn't even come to .000007%. This is yet another wedge issue the repugnicans like to harp on. How about cutting that $60 Billion Dollars that subsidize the oil companies that are ripping us off? But, if you really think that PBS is part of the reason we are going to budget hell, I'm gonna reach out and conclude that you are GULPING the crap called RIGHT WING talk radio. P.S. Maybe we should take care of our Vets a whole lot better too.
Click to expand...

Well How about cutting defense contractors thats been an issue for some time.
 
radiowizard101 said:
How about cutting that $60 Billion Dollars that subsidize the oil companies that are ripping us off?
Click to expand...

Better yet cut the $90 billion in subsidies for 'green' energy companies that failed. Oh wait, they bundle too much money in contributions to the Democrat party to do that. And where do you get the $60 billion figure from from? It's about $2.3 billion per year and the last time I checked, oil as an energy source actually works. And cutting defense? Taken a look at the middle east in the last few months?

I work for our state's public TV network and am not losing any sleep over the cuts. It's all red meat for the base but at the end of the day the cuts don't come and the finding is maintained on a bi-partisan basis. In our state we are also the backbone for EAS so we accomplish something along with the programming we provide.
 
Public funding for PBS and NPR should be considered on merit, not relative to other allocations. Seed money from the Government was necessary to get these services started. It would be difficult to argue against that. Public acceptance of PBS programs helped pave the way for private endeavors such as A&E, Discovery Channel and The History Channel, yet Public Broadcasting remains popular and well funded on its own.

The question is, "When should this seed money stop?" "What else should Government cut?" arguments totally miss the point. They will likely get this thread kicked outside, and rightly so.
 
Sure, who needs public broadcasting. Clear Channel and Cumulus are doing a great job serving the public interest. They all have huge news staffs that cover important stories, and always pre-empt regular programming when storms are in the area. No need for anything because the radio companies care about us first and profit second. No need for government money.
 
TheBigA said:
Sure, who needs public broadcasting. Clear Channel and Cumulus are doing a great job serving the public interest. They all have huge news staffs that cover important stories, and always pre-empt regular programming when storms are in the area. No need for anything because the radio companies care about us first and profit second. No need for government money.
Click to expand...

And if the government stops funding public broadcasting it will fold up and disappear? C'mon! Ya' gotta do better than that. :)
 
wadio said:
And if the government stops funding public broadcasting it will fold up and disappear? C'mon! Ya' gotta do better than that. :)
Click to expand...

That's not the point. Romney wants it to be more like Clear Channel. That's his idea of public service. Serve the stockholders, and make a profit.
 
TheBigA said:
wadio said:
And if the government stops funding public broadcasting it will fold up and disappear? C'mon! Ya' gotta do better than that. :)
Click to expand...

That's not the point. Romney wants it to be more like Clear Channel. That's his idea of public service. Serve the stockholders, and make a profit.
Click to expand...

That's not what he said! He said he likes Big Bird and even likes Jim Lehrer -- he just doesn't believe Government should pay for them.

If you think Romney's intent is to dismantle the public broadcasting model (which I don't) then your argument would be valid. There's no evidence of that. In fact, it was the Public Broadcasting System, not the Government that sought permission to move from the pure public model to a more commercial model by accepting advertising underwriting!

Freedom from Government support would make Public Broadcasting more independent than ever with relatively little impact on its budget. Being able to boast that they receive no government support could likely result in higher pledges. Big Bird would be proud!
 
Looking at the television landscape, networks like "Animal Planet", "The History Channel", "National Geographic", Travel channels, and others are doing what used to be exclusive to PBS. They are doing it without funds from the feds. PBS, and other public broadcast systems, began life as little baby services who needed their umbilical cord to big mama-government. Now that they are well over 26 years old, it's time to cut the umbilical cord and have them strike out on their own. They will not perish. They are plenty strong. The fact that just a small amount of their total budgets come from mama-government, tells us that they have the ability to do just fine. They can also help draw down our dangerous debt. Every little bit counts in working to tackle the deficit.
 
wadio said:
That's not what he said! He said he likes Big Bird and even likes Jim Lehrer -- he just doesn't believe Government should pay for them.
Click to expand...

He has also said that they should run commercials. Sure, since commercial broadcasting has done such a great job serving the public.

This is a radio discussion group. We've all seen what profits and stockholders have done for public service and job creation in commercial radio. Should PBS be run like Clear Channel and Cumulus? That's what Romney wants.

wadio said:
If you think Romney's intent is to dismantle the public broadcasting model (which I don't) then your argument would be valid. There's no evidence of that.
Click to expand...

If Romney does what the rest of his party wants, then their intent is to dismantle public broadcasting. That's what Chris Christie did in New Jersey.

wadio said:
Freedom from Government support would make Public Broadcasting more independent than ever with relatively little impact on its budget.
Click to expand...

They are completely independent now. The Corporation For Public Broadcasting prevents any government interference. But government support makes it possible for them to provide commercial-free programming for children. Unless you think 18 commercial minutes an hour for children is a good idea.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom