What's new
By:

New? Obama ad

Gameface said:
I personally like PBS, a lot. I like NPR, and contribute my own money to them. So for me, when the government spends tax payer money on those things it doesn't bug me because I want them destroyed, it bugs me because those things are not the responsibility of the government to provide. It is immoral in my opinion to take people's money by force and spend it on trivialities that the people who had their money taken by force may or may not want or even be in a position to benefit from.
Click to expand...



Can't you see the value of having non corporate television, and radio? Some people want to pay for it, and some don't. I respect those that don't
want their money spent there. Should we take a vote on it? It's also a valid point that money going there is a drop in a bucket, and
bringing this up is avoiding the real topic. How we can stop wasteful spending on a bigger scale. The fact the the Republicans are using PBS
as an example of how they are going to balance the budget is pretty humerous don't you think?
 
Revolution 9 said:
Can't you see the value of having non corporate television, and radio? Some people want to pay for it, and some don't. I respect those that don't
want their money spent there. Should we take a vote on it? It's also a valid point that money going there is a drop in a bucket, and
bringing this up is avoiding the real topic. How we can stop wasteful spending on a bigger scale. The fact the the Republicans are using PBS
as an example of how they are going to balance the budget is pretty humerous don't you think?
Click to expand...

I don't think it is, no. Obviously there will have to be major cuts in all the obvious areas that will undoubtedly sting a high percentage of Americans. It's plainly obvious, isn't it? But there also needs to be a hard look at the smaller areas such as PBS. The point is there are programs that are near and dear to many of our hearts (an awful lot of us grew up with Big Bird on the television) .. but a message needs to be sent that both large and small fixes will be required to fix a problem larger than either of them, alone.
 
franklin said:
Green is my new hero.
Click to expand...

stir-the-pot.jpg
 
The Thriller said:
But when you're trying to construct a house you don't begin with choosing what type of shower drain you're going to install. You're going to begin with the foundation, then a framework, and so on.
Click to expand...

That works great when you're building a new house but when you are remodeling you have to look at the problem in a totally different manner, especially if your finances are limited. Sometimes you have to tackle smaller issues first and go from there.
 
PKM said:
I don't think it is, no. Obviously there will have to be major cuts in all the obvious areas that will undoubtedly sting a high percentage of Americans. It's plainly obvious, isn't it? But there also needs to be a hard look at the smaller areas such as PBS. The point is there are programs that are near and dear to many of our hearts (an awful lot of us grew up with Big Bird on the television) .. but a message needs to be sent that both large and small fixes will be required to fix a problem larger than either of them, alone.
Click to expand...

Not me. I had a mother who cared.



nevermind. I don't have the emotion to troll either.
 
One of the key problems with the Keynes model being used for the stimulus is that we also ran a deficit during our surging economies. That little fact right there flies in the face of the Keynes model, no? (I don't know this stuff as much as some others here, I'm sure.)

I get bailing out a sluggish economy, I do not get running a deficit consistently in perpetuity.
 
But how are presidents supposed to get reelected?

The amount of deficit for sure. I also doubt Keynes would have advocated Bush's Keynesian stimulus in 2003 due to the nature of the recession (that Paul Ryan promoted IIRC).

The lesson I hope we learn is that this all hinges on measuring inflation properly. There's a lot of room for Greenspan's error there. Sharing wealth gains across all classes is also important if we want to smooth the business cycle.
 
franklin said:
But how are presidents supposed to get reelected?

The amount of deficit for sure. I also doubt Keynes would have advocated Bush's Keynesian stimulus in 2003 due to the nature of the recession (that Paul Ryan promoted IIRC).

The lesson I hope we learn is that this all hinges on measuring inflation properly. There's a lot of room for Greenspan's error there. Sharing wealth gains across all classes is also important if we want to smooth the business cycle.
Click to expand...

Wow. That was totally a great response and the way things should be communicated.
 
Gameface said:
It is immoral in my opinion to take people's money by force and spend it on trivialities that the people who had their money taken by force may or may not want or even be in a position to benefit from.
Click to expand...

1) One person's triviality is another person's mission. If I've got rare skills and am politically ambivalent, I need to be defended from foreign invaders much less than those with without such skills and/or strong political opinions. I doubt yo uthink that makes defense spending immoral.
2) For some kids, the only exposure they get to the basics of literacy before school comes from PBS. Everyone benefits from a literate society.
 
trigg3r said:
I get it, Sesame Street doesn't get the entire 450 million. They do get a nice chunk of change out of that though. Everything should be on the table.
Click to expand...

How it typically works is that the stations that need money get the money, and then choose which programming they wish to purchase, to my undersgtanding. Cutting federal funding will more likely make some stations (those suerving the less well-populated, poorer and more rural areas) go dark than have any other significant effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top