Romney to kill Big Bird

Not trying to make a party political point, but Romney wants to axe PBS, and that means Big Bird will sonn be homeless and join the ranks of those 40% that rely on government handouts

Apparently Sesame Street is a hotbed of liberal propaganda!

Big Bird: what has Mitt Romney got against PBS? | World news | The Guardian

In this day and age with the preponderance of cable, satellite and internet access, not to mention the $16 BILLION we're in debt, why in the world would the government need to subsidize ANY media?

Should have been done a LONG time ago, IMO.

PBS will never go away. It's one of the most trusted broadcasting stations, and also holds the most stations programming under its belt(unless that changed recently). I don't do a lot of TV watching, but I respect PBS a lot more than any other broadcasting stations. Unlike most broadcasting stations, PBS runs groups that are non-profit based. PBS is known for their educational and news/documentary shows, some of which I actually enjoy watching. NOVA is an awesome show!

louishen said:

Apparently Sesame Street is a hotbed of liberal propaganda!

Click to expand...

The experts say you need to get to voters early . . . ..
Why else do you think Cookie Monster is Blue (Democratic Colors)?

indychris said:

In this day and age with the preponderance of cable, satellite and internet access, not to mention the $16 BILLION we're in debt, why in the world would the government need to subsidize ANY media?

Should have been done a LONG time ago, IMO.

Click to expand...

If only it were $16 billion, cancelling a few jets would deal with that, or scrapping an aircraft carrier.

The US debt is $16 trillion, so a saving of $444m will go towards that but not much (0.00002775%)

Meh... things change and everyone (even Big Bird) dies eventually. PBS, like all other institution, is not "too big to fail".

louishen said:

If only it were $16 billion, cancelling a few jets would deal with that, or scrapping an aircraft carrier.

The US debt is $16 trillion, so a saving of $444m will go towards that but not much (0.00002775%)

Click to expand...

Trillion. THAT'S what I meant!

Thanks for brining clarity to my otherwise flawless ignorance!

In the last episode will be brought to you by the letters BB and the number 16000000000000

PBS, like all other institution, is not "too big to fail

Click to expand...

Right on. PBS over the years has lost its neutrality, objectivity, and has aligned itself politically. And since it's funded in part by tax payer dollars, it no longer serves the purpose for which it was intended. (My opinion.)

XJ-linux said:

Meh... things change and everyone (even Big Bird) dies eventually. PBS, like all other institution, is not "too big to fail".

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I like a future where children's programming is left strictly under the guidance of corporate self-interests. Of course PBS is broader than that and while I haven't watched anything on it in eons, I can appreciate that others do and it has value for the purpose they serve.

chscag said:

Right on. PBS over the years has lost its neutrality, objectivity, and has aligned itself politically. And since it's funded in part by tax payer dollars, it no longer serves the purpose for which it was intended. (My opinion.)

Click to expand...

I disagree. The greater majority of PBS funding comes from public and private donations. Only a small percentage come from the government from "tax payers". If being funded by tax payer dollars causes something to no longer serve a "purpose," I could create a never-ending list of things that no longer serve the original purpose. There are FAR worse things that Romney could've mentioned.

I see nothing wrong with PBS. I grew up watching PBS, and I sure hope its still around for my kids to watch.

lifeisabeach said:

I'm not sure I like a future where children's programming is left strictly under the guidance of corporate self-interests..

Click to expand...

No offense, but children's programming is, or should be, strictly under the guidance of the children's parent or guardians. If it's not, then the kid has bigger problems that can't be addressed by having or not having Big Bird available on TV. Anyhow, if I want to be really cynical... I might suggest that the government itself is under the strict guidance of corporations and unions anyhow, so it really doesn't matter too much who "owns PBS" so to speak.

louishen said:

Not trying to make a party political point, but Romney wants to axe PBS, and that means Big Bird will sonn be homeless and join the ranks of those 40% that rely on government handouts

Click to expand...

Good.

I, the tax payer, shouldn't be involved in funding TV anyway.

If I, the private citizen, value a particular TV station, I will support it through donations, or it can support itself through advertising or other means.

Most of the federal government and its budget should be WHACKED and WHACKED hard.

I no longer have TV at home - but I do like PBS, and if I had a TV, I would watch PBS (if I had time). I find it one of a very few things on that is worth watching. But I still don't think the government has any business funding it.

The US debt is $16 trillion, so a saving of $444m will go towards that but not much (0.00002775%)

Click to expand...

I agree. So, the govt should give ME $444m - since its such a small amount it will not matter much anyway.

XJ-linux said:

No offense, but children's programming is, or should be, strictly under the guidance of the children's parent or guardians. If it's not, then the kid has bigger problems that can't be addressed by having or not having Big Bird available on TV. Anyhow, if I want to be really cynical... I might suggest that the government itself is under the strict guidance of corporations and unions anyhow, so it really doesn't matter too much who "owns PBS" so to speak.

Click to expand...

Oh how that is so TRUE!

Every time this issue is discussed it is addressed in the popular media as trying to kill (nsert name of popular Sesame Street Character). The argument generally is leave it alone because it is such a small portion of the US budget. I suspect that given licensing deals brokered by Children's Television Workshop Big Bird would survive quite well.

Hey we ALL know....BIG Bird will survive anything!.....Just sayin...

XJ-linux said:

No offense, but children's programming is, or should be, strictly under the guidance of the children's parent or guardians. If it's not, then the kid has bigger problems that can't be addressed by having or not having Big Bird available on TV. Anyhow, if I want to be really cynical... I might suggest that the government itself is under the strict guidance of corporations and unions anyhow, so it really doesn't matter too much who "owns PBS" so to speak.

Click to expand...

*ahem* Well if you take away commercial-free programming and are left with shows that are pushing an agenda (I read recently about some kids program that got all preachy about music piracy as part of its "lesson") and aren't doing much to help learn, then what can parents turn to? Well more likely than not, they'll just turn to whatever garbage it available, but come on now, who's the victim here? Won't someone think of the children???? (I just had to squeeze that in somehow).

iggibar said:

I disagree. The greater majority of PBS funding comes from public and private donations. Only a small percentage come from the government from "tax payers". If being funded by tax payer dollars causes something to no longer serve a "purpose," I could create a never-ending list of things that no longer serve the original purpose. There are FAR worse things that Romney could've mentioned.

Click to expand...

Then PBS should have no problem if the government were to pull federal funding then. Big Bird won't be going anywhere.

I have no idea what portion of PBS' budget comes from government funding, but I *do* know FOR A FACT that the $444m figure cited works out to an average of $1.50 from each citizen.

You know what? I think that's a FANTASTIC investment and I fully support it. Much better use of my tax money than a LOT of other things the government funds.

What do we get for our buck and a half? Lots of kids learn to read and count watching "Sesame Street." The mornings and afternoons are filled with educational shows for use in classrooms.

Primetime PBS is a feast for the senses with shows like "Nova," "Nature," "Austin City Limits," "Masterpiece Theatre," "Mystery," and Ken Burns' documentaries such as "The Civil War," "Baseball" and "Jazz."

Sounds like a pretty good deal for $1.50 or less than half a cent per day.

But I think you guys are too focused on the small picture. I don't really care what you think of PBS anymore than I care about your opinion of the National Park System. They are both vital and necessary services and will most likely continue to be funded in part with government money, since they are both Very Good Things that contribute more to the US than any individual short-sighted grinches. Both PBS and the NPS take so little out of your taxes compared to unfunded wars, tax cuts for the rich and a defense budget that requires special branches of mathematics just to explain it (and let's not even get into entitlements) that it's like complaining that there's a small cloud ruining your almost perfectly clear sky.

You are missing the Big Picture here, and that is this: a Presidential candidate, when pressed for an idea on how to reduce the $14T deficit, couldn't come up with anything more concrete than cutting PBS funding. After weeks of prep, he couldn't come up with anything that would solve the problem more effectively than cutting something educational (and, budget-wise, utterly trivial).

THAT, right there, is THE PROBLEM. Hopefully you get it now.