Big Bird needs to pay his fair share!

I would prefer to stop "borrowing" hundred of BILLIONS of dollars from China to spend on stupid wars, police actions, war on drugs,etc. 

It is pretty stupid to focus on a program like that when mandatory outlays like SS and Medicare and Discretionary outlays like the military are orders of magnitude larger. How about looking at the F22 fighter? It has been around the last 3 wars yet we havent used it in combat yet. We have dumped Billions down that hole and keep doing so.

The advertising budget for all branches of the military exceeds the amount that goes to PBS.

How about " Sesame Street " sponsored by the letters A.R.M.Y?

So what will we do about the other $15,999,990,000,000?

I can't even imaging why this is such a issue. Back when I was growing up we had 3 channels. I get it. today we have 300. We have the internet. We have 100 news outlets. I don't get it.

Jon Stewart made basically this same point when he debated Bill O'Reilly the other night (a highly entertaining debate, btw, that I highly recommend. I even thought O'Reilly made some reasonable arguments, though I still disagree with the vast majority of his positions). We don't get, as a population, to say "I won't pay for the things I don't like or disagree with". Give me back the money we spent going to war in Iraq (Afghanistan I believe was warranted), and I'LL pay for PBS. And birth control for all, since apparently THAT is also an issue with some on the right.

President Obama disagrees with you since he continued to do it for 3.5 years. I would be all for doing away with all of it. Yet protecting the country and maintaining a military and all the associated costs to do that are actually spelled out in the Constitution as a responsibility of the Federal Government. Funding a public broadcasting company isn't.

Sure thing.  So when we get attacked again, we'll at least have good wholesome shows that nobody watches.  We'll have Elmo and Big Bird and Grover, and we'll all know how much the old hutch in our house is worth when the invading army from Centralia pillages it...

The advertising budget contributes to recruiting which is essential to keep the force at about the same level.  Even when they cut-back on wars, they should keep the advertising going to keep the number of applicants high and raise the bar for entry so you get the best of the applicants.  That way you can do more with less because you have the best (See US Marine Corps, 4% of funding, 40% of all combat missions) and because you know the DOD budget will get cut.

The chart below shows that Defense Spending, while high, is equal to the ponzi scheme known as Social Security and less than Mediscare and Medicaid.  So it's not the biggest number or even the biggest waste (cough social security cough). 

In that DOD Budget are programs that could save some big numbers, but those are some of the ones with the most jobs i.e. Joint Strike Fighter ($11.4B), Ballistic Missile Defense ($9.9B), Virginia Class Submarine ($5.4B).  Oh and guess what states those are developed in??? Florida, Ohio, Virginia, what President is going to cut 4000 jobs from them?

The majority of the spending is just keeping the best military the world has ever known on our side and not on someone else's side.  Spending in wars is definitely ludicrous, but fighting a war on a shoestring budget is suicide.  End Afghanistan and we'll save some money, but that money isn't budgetted for anyway.  It's under emergency and supplemental spending. So that's not applicable to the PBS budget issue.

The main reason I think you must keep funding the Military:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

If they wanted us to have PBS, they would've included that in the definition...

These types of posts are the things I just don't get.

Obama had two years to do pretty much whatever he wanted. Romney is paying the tax that the Federal Govt. required of him. If those who think he should be paying more why are you not outraged at Obama and the Democrats for for allowing the tax code to be what it is when they had every opportunity to change it.

Now I would imagine, you are going to say something like he didn't have a perfect majority (whatever that means) or something to that affect. He was able to get Obama Care passed which I would guess was harder to do that getting the rich to "pay their fair share".

I guess spending more money was more important that collecting more.

In addition, the Federal Govt. historically has proven that no matter how much they collect they are able to outspend the revenue collected.

Gomesbolt - I believe education is a better weapon against further attacks. The military didnt stop 9/11. You know what does stop crap like that? Education. They need to get out of the dark ages. We need to realize that guns and bombs dont make people like you..ever.

 I am fine with having a military. The Constitution provides for that ( Navy and Army but it says that Army appropriations for be for a period of no longer than 2 years ) although now we have many branches beyond that. I guess the Air Force and Marines arent in the Constitution. I am against having such a massive militray. Many of the Framers were aginst large standing armies. Dwight Eisenhower saw the inherent danger of letting the military get too big and too tight with corporate and political influences. I think the massive discretionary outlays for the wars and for peacetime military budgets could be better used with other domestic initiatives. So yeah, I am cool with PBS.

Where does the constitution mention PBS?

your tag line - it fits.

PBS isnt mentioned anywhere in the Constitution...EXCEPT when Congress authorized the money for it

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

so yeah, I am cool with PBS and us spending money on it.

So that is fair... but the point is WHY? Why does the Federal Government need to fund a financially sound company such as PBS? If PBS is such a treasure, why do the people that watch it not pay for it. I realize they do donation drives, so why does the Federal Government need to pay?

The point is, there needs to be some serious cuts in spending. And those cuts will effect a lot of people... military, SS, Medicare/caid... big programs with big impacts.... why is PBS somehow a sacred cow?

Is there anything that congress can't authorize money for?

So it works out to about $1 per person. I have no issue ponying up $4 of my taxes for PBS. Given how much impact it has on my family of 4, I think that's a pretty good ROI.

Oh wait, but you say only half of us pay taxes? OK, it's $8 a year and still a bargain.

Especially when I read this nonsense in a list of pork-barrel funding: Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE), $19 million for a free-clam program to benefit people who have never eaten clams.

I guess that's one way of looking at it.

Some other considerations or food for thought, the guy playing Big Bird makes over $300,000.00 a year.

If you add the PBS and all the other crap our Federal Govt., including the money wasted on this clam BS along with the money the Feds really do need to spend it comes to, well what is imo serious money. If you take what out debt is today per person I think it's a little over $50,000 per person, now as you said only about have the people are paying taxes so every tax payer has a debt of $100,000.00, now I don't mind the 4 dollars here or the 8 dollars there, but when you add it all up it actually becomes real money.

If you pay my share of the national debt, I'll gladly pay the $8.00 for PBS.

I wonder how many households that have debt 5 times their annual income would borrow money to give to charity?

Cruse, We have historically agreed to NOT agree on many thing political.  That being said; I remember, not to long ago when we actually had a budget SURPLUS.  Any a booming economy that made LOTS of people rich.  Then we started two wars, only one of which was justified, and gave a tax cut we had no plans to pay for.  Now while my "Mittens" comment was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, it is fact that of all the fraud, waste and abuse in our govt spending...PBS doesn't cost much.   And as a parent, I believe the 'lessons' learned on PBS by our children are important ones.   

I think I answered that for you.

Well, they included unions and welfare, so they must have wanted us to have those, right?

If you want a more serious response, take a look at the term "general welfare" (which I know does not really mean Welfare as it is used in most of these discussions). Now look at the mission of PBS: 

"PBS’ mission is to create content that educates, informs and inspires. To do this, PBS offers programming that expands the minds of children,documentaries that open up new worlds, non-commercialized news programs that keep citizens informed on world events and cultures and programs that expose America to the worlds of music, theater, dance and art."

That, to me, meets the definition of general welfare, in the way the founders intended. Now, you can debate whether they are meeting their mission. But I would point out that PBS was founded in 1970, and is still receiving public money, and overall accountable to the people. And they continue to run a lot of programs intended to educate kids and adults - shows like Sesame Street, Masterpiece Theater, Frontline, and NOVA. While TLC was founded in 1972 by NASA and the Department of Education, went private in 1980, and now gives us shows like "Honey Boo Boo", 19 Kids and Counting, and Hoarding.  

Agree 100% as a parent.