The Sesame Street Gang Explains PBS Budget [Pic]

Submitted by: fancylad 4 years ago

Only 6 hours?
There are 51 comments:
Male 440
Why subsidize any company that makes 100s of million of dollars a year?
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Getting rid of the penny, nickel and Quarter would save much more money than de-funding Public Television.[/quote]
So, let`s do BOTH! (the penny and nickel, anyway).
0
Reply
Male 559
Getting rid of the penny, nickel and Quarter would save much more money than de-funding Public Television.
0
Reply
Male 73
Ok....lets not defend ourselves for 6 hours and see what happens. I will take the 6 hours over a life time of PBS.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]"Sesame St. = constitutionally prohibited"
What the...how? Am I missing something here?[/quote]
Yes, as a matter of fact you are missing something here. It`s in the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
0
Reply
Male 579
Wow, does the left really think we are that stupid? Apparently so. What a complete waste of ink!
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Musuko: Veteran`s pensions should be just like all the other government employee pensions, their healthcare just like government employees healthcare.

Veteran`s are former military, not active duty. Forcing those expenses onto the military is a duplication of bureaucracy and cost.

Military personnel are paid on a government scale just like government employees, based on `grades` and years of service. Pensions for both are also paid in a similar manner. They also get paid from the same source, The US Treasury.

We could save a lot of money cutting down on this type of duplication of bureaucracy. Lumping Veteran`s payments and costs onto the military is wasteful and erroneously inflates the `defense` budget.
0
Reply
Male 770
screw all that.
sesame street is a multi Billion dollar a year product.
It just plain dont facking need tax dollars.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak

"Veteran`s pensions isn`t `defense`."

Yes it is. If you didn`t have a military, you wouldn`t have veterans and you wouldn`t be paying their pensions.

@OldOllie

"Sesame St. = constitutionally prohibited"

What the...how? Am I missing something here?
0
Reply
Male 17,512
HG: [quote]Consider this the last time I engage you in any kind of discussion.[/quote]

Research and development isn`t `defense`.
Atomic energy isn`t `defense`.
Veteran`s pensions isn`t `defense`.

If you can`t recognize that then perhaps it`s better that you don`t discuss things like this.
0
Reply
Male 4,283
"Yeah...well I live in Dover between DC, Baltimore, Philly and NY. We also happen to have one of if not the largest military base on the east coast. And my butt is sitting a hell of a lot closer to a major target than yours. I`m not scared of china but Muslim terrorists do concern me a bit."

I was responding to a comment about China and nukes. Seattle is their closest major U.S. target.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Defense = constitutionally required

Sesame St. = constitutionally prohibited

Any questions?
0
Reply
Male 7,907
CrakrJak

Hahahahahahahaha.

Priceless, so "defense spending" isn`t "defense". Debating with you is utterly pointless. You`d rather sound like a total jackass than just admit you were wrong. Consider this the last time I engage you in any kind of discussion.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
HG: I believe you are including expenses that have nothing to do with actual spending on bases and personnel. Your quoted number includes research and development, atomic energy, and other such expenses that have little to do with boots on the ground.

Deducting those ancillary expenses, the `military` budget is under $600 billion and it`s being cut next year.

PBS, NPR & CTW can support themselves and if you feel that they can`t then perhaps you tightwad liberals can open your purse strings and donate more to them.
0
Reply
Male 582
all these replies are way too long. didnt read 1
0
Reply
Male 10,845
One of the most prominent characteristics of poverty is "homelessness". Truth is in 2009 only 112,000 were actually considered chronically homeless while the rest were simply getting with there lives.

Courtesy of Dennis Culhane
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]Nick Jr and QDRO don`t come with basic cable[/quote]

True, but some of their programs are available on the Early Saturday morning block. Of course there`s always DVDs.

[quote]I guess when I think poor I define it as people who are in a much worse situation then some of those that are technically "poor".[/quote]

That is a rather legitimate point regarding govt standards. Then again not everyone can agree on what "poor" really is. But I should point out, as the paper does, that today the households assessed below the poverty line have a higher standard of living than those assessed in the same category 40 years ago.
0
Reply
Male 7,907
CrakrJak

"The government gives the Corporation for Public Broadcasting $444 million a year. That`s a lot more than just `6 hours` of the defense budget."

Do you bother figuring things out for yourself before you come on here and say things that are SIMPLY NOT TRUE?

Here, I`ll walk you through it:

8766 hours in a year
6 / 8766 = .000684
So 6 hours is .000684 of a year

Defense spending is officially $711 B (it`s really more)
$711 B x .000684 = $486 M
So six hours of defense spending IS MORE than the entire government subsidy to Public Broadcasting.

Wiggle out of admitting you are wrong on this one.
0
Reply
Male 7,907
Cajun247

"64% of poor households have access to cable/satellite TV."

1. Good point.

2. Nick Jr and QDRO don`t come with basic cable. You need expanded tiers, etc. This obviously doesn`t separate, but we can assume that is much lower.

3. This uses the technical definition of "poor" which is 1 in 7. I didn`t realize poverty was defined that loosely. I guess when I think poor I define it as people who are in a much worse situation then some of those that are technically "poor".
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote">You think most poor people in this country have access to those?[/quote">

64% of poor households have access to cable/satellite TV.

Thus I don`t "think" so, I KNOW so.
0
Reply
Male 7,907
Cajun247

Qubo, Nick jr, and netflix. Lovely. My children enjoy those things. Of course my children have access to 500 channels of cable and a netflix subscription. I spend $250 a month on cable and netflix.

You think most poor people in this country have access to those? Everyone has access to PBS.

Do you feel like there are good educational options on the other free network stations?
0
Reply
Male 10,845
Guilty as charged I watch the McLaughlin Group every Sunday. But EVERY time I watch their 30 minute block there`s ALWAYS an ad for Franklin-Templeton Investments, and GE (little girl going to the hospital for MRI). There`s also MetLife, Pfizer, NYSE all of which have sponsored the show in the past.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]They just subsidize public broadcasting.[/quote]

Which they shouldn`t.

[quote]You think private industry does educational TV well?[/quote]

Yes, actually. Qubo comes to mind, then there`s Nick Jr with Dora the Explorer. If you want to skip the advertisements DVDs are available on Netflix which also includes streaming.

[quote]That way we can have ONE station that isn`t beholden to advertisers. ONE station that can educate without pandering.[/quote]

PBS actually does have corporate sponsors, so yeah there is still pandering.
0
Reply
Male 7,907
Cajun247

"government should do things the private industry does quite well in, like broadcasting tv."

I`m going to assume you mean "shouldn`t"?

I agree. But the government IS NOT broadcasting TV. They just subsidize public broadcasting. That way we can have ONE station that isn`t beholden to advertisers. ONE station that can educate without pandering.

You think private industry does educational TV well? Check out TLC.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]That might not matter to you, but SOME people think education is important.[/quote]

Some people think government should do things the private industry does quite well in, like broadcasting tv.

SOME people think the federal govt should fix education, even though it has wasted billions that haven`t translated into gains even by their own measures.

That`s crap I`m sick of.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
Wow. This stupid in this leaks out, Have to close the browser tab now to avoid contamination ...
0
Reply
Male 7,907
CrakrJak

"The government gives the Corporation for Public Broadcasting $444 million a year. That`s a lot more than just `6 hours` of the defense budget."

Do you bother figuring things out for yourself before you come on here and say things that are SIMPLY NOT TRUE?

Here, I`ll walk you through it:

8766 hours in a year
6 / 8766 = .000684
So 6 hours is .000684 of a year

Defense spending is officially $711 B (it`s really more)
$711 B x .000684 = $486 M
So six hours of defense spending IS MORE than the entire government subsidy to Public Broadcasting.

Wiggle out of admitting you are wrong on this one.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
The government gives the Corporation for Public Broadcasting $444 million a year. That`s a lot more than just `6 hours` of the defense budget.
0
Reply
Male 2,362
[quote]I live in Seattle between Boeing Everett and Boeing Renton.[/quote]

Yeah...well I live in Dover between DC, Baltimore, Philly and NY. We also happen to have one of if not the largest military base on the east coast. And my butt is sitting a hell of a lot closer to a major target than yours. I`m not scared of china but Muslim terrorists do concern me a bit.
0
Reply
Male 7,907
TruTenrMan

"I`m sick of this crap. Ask CTW and Sesame Street how much their magazine division, book royalties, product licensing, and foreign broadcasting brings in revenue-wise."

You don`t have to ask them dips.hit. It is a matter of public record. Take the time and look it up yourself.

According to their tax records their total revenue is around $130 M. 33 percent comes from product licensing. 32 percent comes from distribution fees and royalties.

tinyurl.com/9k4l25o

Very little of the government support of public broadcasting goes to sesame street. Sesame street would be just fine. However the rest of PBS doesn`t have those diverse revenue streams. That might not matter to you, but SOME people think education is important.

You know what "crap" I`m "sick of"? Ignorant morons like you messing up intelligent discussion on this site and in my country.

0
Reply
Male 4,283
"Do you know how many Nukes china can launch in 6 hours?"

I live in Seattle between Boeing Everett and Boeing Renton. My neighborhood would be gone. I have zero fear that this would actually happen. This is not the 50`s. Maybe you should try dirty bombs as a scare tactic.
0
Reply
Male 4,283
"The link you posted shows defense at $711 B unless I`m missing something."

That confused me also. The number from the first list doesn`t match the second list. Whatever the number is it is a hell of a lot. And if they want more then what is on the brain is war.
0
Reply
Male 7,907
ajd121

"Do you know how many Nukes china can launch in 6 hours?"

If that was a joke, hahahaha.

If it wasn`t, you are an idiot and an example about how people get frightened enough to give up their future, taxes, and rights to be protected from things they don`t need protected from.

We are, by far, the largest importer of Chinese goods. A US embargo of China would cause their economy to crumble overnight.

Saying china is going to attack us is about as likely as saying mitt romney is going to shoot the koch brothers.

NOT to mention that very little of the "defense" budget is spent on "defense". Most of it is spent on R&D, acquisition, offense, and imperialism. You could cut the defense budget by 80% without this country being any less defended.
0
Reply
Male 7,907
Markust123

"According to the SIPRI military expenditure database the US spent $689 Billion this last budget on defense. "

The link you posted shows defense at $711 B unless I`m missing something. But keep in mind that is the "official" defense budget. True defense spending is significantly higher. Some estimates have it over $1 T when you take into account their share of debt interest, and the healthcare and discretionary funds used for military purposes.

tinyurl.com/7og3ujp

Mitt`s plan is $2.1 T over 10 years. An increase equal to 470 decades of PBS and NPR funding.
0
Reply
Male 634
Do you know how many Nukes china can launch in 6 hours?
0
Reply
Male 307
Frankly, I am all for going after the "low hanging fruit" in trying to cut unnecessary and/or extraneous items from the budget. However, considering that PBS is less than .01% of the Federal Budget, why bother?

The problem is that *both* parties want instaneous, quick results that they can show the American public that they are "better than the other" - all of the budget should be reviewed, and all recipients (including military, social security, medicare/medicaid, etc.) should carefully be picked thorugh to find ways of lowering costs - this naturally will allow budgets to be dropped to acceptable levels. Get rid of the typical bureaucratic waste and the budget will balance itself with no knee-jerk cuts to satisfy voters.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
If they break even where does the money from all that mechandise go?
0
Reply
Male 4,283
"Ask CTW and Sesame Street how much their magazine division, book royalties, product licensing, and foreign broadcasting brings in revenue-wise. Losing the government subsidy won`t affect them much."

PBS barely breaks even. They run on a very tight budget: Link
0
Reply
Male 546
How much is Sesame Street worth? Do they really need our money to survive and prosper? If not, then why are we giving it to them?
0
Reply
Male 2,578
It could be something like that. I`m not really sure why more military would be necessary. It could be his version of stimulus, perhaps. This was actually what they did a lot during the cold war. Military spending was exceedingly high during the 60`s and it inflated the growth rates, only to have bad repercussions in the 70`s. But bottom line, you don`t need this much money to fight/police terrorists.


Another reason Mitt may want to do it is simply out of his desire to appease the base. It`s a recurring theme.
0
Reply
Male 2,552
I`m sick of this crap.

Ask CTW and Sesame Street how much their magazine division, book royalties, product licensing, and foreign broadcasting brings in revenue-wise. Losing the government subsidy won`t affect them much.
0
Reply
Male 4,283
"The 2 trillion figure is a 10 year deal."

So Mitt Romney`s plan is to raise military spending to $889,591 (Going off last budget). That will be as much as the next 90 top spending countries combined. That seams very fiscal. Doesn`t that scream we are going to war with at least two more countries? Is his unemployment solution to hire more of our boys to send to war?
0
Reply
Male 10,845
0
Reply
Male 2,578
We have a bankrupt country regardless. The 2 trillion figure is a 10 year deal. I`m not a fan of candidates expressing figures in these terms (they won`t even be in office for that long, at best), it tends to be misleading.

We need to cut the military to probably around 2.5-3% of GDP and readjust to focus on research and development. We should also bolster the Navy and the Air Force, these are how future wars will be won. You could defeat the entire might of China by blockading the Straight of Malacca.

However, with that said, China`s military spending is increasing at over 12% per year (And most agree they severely underreport everything). By 2015, their budget should be at least 240 Billion, which is greater than all other East Asian countries combined.

In the end, it`s about making the military more efficient, rather than "cutting" it. That was my dad`s job in the Air Force. It can be done.
0
Reply
Male 553
Who cares? I mean if he cut PBS`s budget, what difference does it make? No one watches except for old people and small children who can get their educational programming from another network.. Or you know, maybe school or their parents.. He said that PBS is just an example of one of the many useless things he would cut, yet people center their attention on JUST PBS like that`s his entire solution to the budget problem. It`s not like he said "I know! I`ll just cut funding to PBS! Problem solved! Budget fixed :D!." It might be a small amount of money compared to our military spending, but it`s something, and a lot of small things can add up to one big thing.. It definitely wouldn`t hurt our debt situation, that`s for sure.
0
Reply
Male 439
Mitt Romney never said he could balance the budget by ending funding to PBS. He mentioned as a single example of many cuts that will absolutely have to be made if we are ever going to balance the budget. - Not a Romney supporter, BTW.
0
Reply
Male 4,283
According to the SIPRI military expenditure database the US spent $689 Billion this last budget on defense. That is as much as the next 16 highest countries spent. Mitt wants to add another $2 Trillion to defense. I don`t know if that is yearly or over 10 years but either way it should scare the sh*t out of people. The war machine wants to come back, and come back with a vengeance. Add that to the massive 20% tax cuts he wants to implement and you have a bankrupt country. Fiscal conservative my ass.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
Cut everything, across the board. It`s that simple. This includes defense. However, you`re pretty dumb if you want to cut it below 2% of GDP. Defense spending is important for Research and development. You like Cell Phones and Internet? Thank US military spending. That`s real stimulus.


By the way, Sesame Street recently came out and said it doesn`t want to be used as a political tool by either side. So lefties, you don`t speak for big bird.
0
Reply
Male 3,577
the only way to Balance the Budget is to cut everything and rise tax on every one.
the hard part would be all the unemployed government workers.
0
Reply
Male 1,497
Libertarianism is the only hope for America.
0
Reply
Male 19,840
0
Reply