Big Bird needs to pay his fair share! (Page 3)

X2.  This is similar to the wind farm fight that they had in the NE recently.  Everyone is in favor of increased focus on sustainable energy.....until it is in their backyard.

I don't think anyone believes that by cutting subsidies to PBS, the budget deficit will be eliminated.  But, it is like the analogy about eating an elephant - you do it one bite at a time. Everything should be on the table.  

I also don't believe that anyone who actually looked at the numbers would believe that we had a budget "surplus" at anytime in the last 30 years or so.  At least not from the perspective that you or I would run our household budget.  The surplus that is touted by Democrats as occurring during the Clinton years, and the one touted by Romney as having occurred in Mass. during his tenure as governor, were derived by manipulating numbers. When questioned, they are passed off as having used "generally accepted accounting practices".  Anyone who deals with GAAP on a regular basis knows that it is like swiss cheese - full of holes that you could drive a truck through. 

Finally, I am in no way an expert on PBS.  I didn't watch it growing up, and my kids didn't watch when they grew up.  When I grew up, we didn't have American TV, and my kids had no interest in it.  So, I can't say whether it is worthwhile or not.  

That's some big swiss cheese! 

This message brought to you by the word SARCASM...

Since the debate, people have been listing things that the government spends more money on that PBS.  Here's a few examples:

The budget for military marching bands. 

Two days of war in Afghanistan.

Isreal's military.  Egypt's military.  Jordan, who is paid to not mess with the Isreali military.

Office expenses of the US House of Representatives.

Tanzania, Nigeria, South Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kenya, Uganda (each, not combined).

The unpaid federal taxes of federal employees.  Honestly, how is this even possible.  I work for a city that has their own 1% income tax.  If I don't prove at the end of each year that I paid it, they just take it straight out of my check. 

I don't have a problem with cutting funding to PBS, but it needs to be wrapped up in a bigger effort to cut funding across the board and bring our country back to financial solvency.  But that's not what this is about.  Romney threw it out there because it's a big talking point for Republicans who view PBS and (more importantly) NPR as having a liberal bias.  Democrats jumped on it to take heat off of Obama's poor debate performance.  And both candidates love it because it deflects from either guy having to actually tackle important issues.  Yes, PBS is unnecessary spending.  But at least it spending that betters the country.  Something that you can't say about a whole lot of government expenditures.  And if Romney is truly concerned about cutting any program that requires us to borrow money from China, how come he hasn't declared that he'll cut the foreign aid we pay each year to China? 

So much for context. The point was not Big Bird, the point was borrowing money from China. And yes, I agree, I would not want to borrow money from China to fund Big Bird.

That doesn't mean it has to be cut, that means that it isn't going on a credit card so if it is a priority, then something else has to go, just like any family budget. If I want cable TV but can't afford it without a credit card I can cut out a dinner out to pay for it.

That was the point, Big Bird was just used to make the point. But the Obama campaign plan worked. Latch on to a sound bite and get everyone arguing over the importance of Big Bird so we can ignore the real issue of our credit card balance being too high. Unfortunately when people like to ignore the real issues it is easy to start a fight over Big Bird and to make the other guy look evil for even suggesting to not fully support Big Bird.

This election is a joke that will be decided on whatever sound bite comes out 3 days before the election. That says to me we have a dumb electorate. I shudder to think how bad it will be 4, 8, 12, 16 years from now. It will most likely be based on who does better at Dancing With the Stars.

Big Bird is a red herring.  Bert is the real extremist on PBS and he needs to be stopped.

yup.  i'm a sad panda.

Can't see the pic. 

Mehaner, what's a sad panda? 

It's the Angry Bert picture posing with OBL.

Well, we can't argue with him, he's dead. And I also read the opposite of invading Iraq long after the liberation of Kuwait.

This is the interesting question, and it gets to a deeper issue.  Everyone on both sides of the isle and on both sides of the political debate agree that the Federal Government needs to curb spending and make spending cuts.  The problem is that they don't want their projects cut, but only want the other guys pet projects cut. 

It's similar with the voting populace, even those that are in favor of the most radical cuts seem to want those things that they don't agree with or don't utilize, and thus see as superfulous (sp?) cut.  They rarely will agree to cutting the projects that they utilize and thus see as vital.

I love PBS, it's childrens programing and educational programing and arts programing are great...

But at what point do we as a society, send a message to Washington that the cuts have to start, and they have to start somewhere....

I truly believe that the answer is that it won't happen.  No one, not the people that govern nor the voters, nor the non-voters seem willing to make the tough calls, and agree to make the hard cuts.

Why is it there stated goal that they want to destroy us? 

Part of it is chances are pretty good they haven't met any of us and have been brainwashed by a narrow view of the world.  A broader education of people would help eliminate this.  Part of it is our lack of ability to understand things from their viewpoint as all they have seen of us is assorted wars and funding of corrupt governments that oppress their people.  A broader education of our people would help eliminate this. 

Education is much cheaper and more productive than spending the money after the fact on weapons/military pay/VA.

 Got it? 

No, its not what for the reasons you stated, its we, for the most part are not muslim and our government is not based on sharia law.  Its as simple as that.

You honestly think they would be over here attacking us if we weren't over there manipulating their societies?  Also would they have as big of an issue with us if they knew that we all tend to hold the same general values, excluding the radical few on all sides of the earth?  I have no issues with Christians, Muslisms, Hindu, Buddists, Athiests or whateverists because I "know" that we really are all the same people.  Listening to the issues of and understanding others is a great way to bridge the gap that exists between societies and causes confusion. 

PBS, in my opinion, has some great pieces on this.  Education is one of those valuable things that shouldn't be first on the chopping block when it comes to cutting funding.

I have a friend whose sister has been evacuated from 3 sub-saharan African countries.  Each time by the Marines, each time she was teaching kids english in schools.  She's trying to teach and people with guns come-in and take boys away to fight.  So, you can't out-teach thuggery.  Sorry, it can't be done. You force the thugs to run and hide and teach while they're hiding and then you have educated people to fight when the thugs return.  It is working slowly in Iraq, it may not work in Afghanistan because we told the thugs how long they have to outwait us. 

It is what it is.

Links to the Muslim conquest of Spain and invasion of Eastern Europe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_conquest_of_Hispania

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vienna 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suleiman_I#Conquests_in_Europe

If there was a point, it must have gone over my head. And who is Clay Shirky?

The singing cats were cool though.

^This

*sigh...  Lets try and keep this about PBS from now on, I'll respond to this but if you want to you can PM your response.  Thanks.

I was trying to keep this more in the now, I didn't know we were going pre-medieval on this.  There was a ton of nasty, nasty stuff done by most societies and most religions back in the day.  Now in the modern day we get called out on it more because of the 24/7 global media.  I have very few doubts that we would be pulling the same nonsense if we didn't have people watching us all the time.

We do not have to show it in Southwest Asia.  Just listening to some of the generalizations and misconceptions about Arab and Persian cultures/histories astounds me sometimes.  For me that shows a need for education (I use this not necessarily as school work but as traveling, expanding your horizons).  This whole concept that they need to "be in the same mindset as us" or "at our level" before we will spend one iota of time trying to understand them baffles me.

Educate the kids in Boise and NYC then.  Also when on earth did I say this? "but to say tax dollars spent on PBS educate Tariq Musa Abu Abas in Jordan isn't very accurate." 

That sounds like some tough educational situations for your friends sister.  However, there has to be a reason she keeps going back.  She sees that she is reaching some of them or she doesn't believe in these statements, "So, you can't out-teach thuggery.  Sorry, it can't be done."  When I don't change the ways of a society that have been in place for thousands of years in twenty I wouldn't sulk.  I prefer not to stick my head in the sand.

That's why I said "excluding the few radicals on all sides of the earth."  There will always be some, anywhere that don't appreciate or want the status quo but overall I think the vast majority of people just want peace and a better life.

Yeah, it was a good explanation of how the internet could change things, but really hasn't made them much better...

Then I watched/listened to his SOPA talk which completely misses a huge deal which is that internet piracy attacks bank accounts, electrical grids (remember the china incident last year?), and other crucial systems.  SOPA is a sledgehammer, but he doesn't propose some alternative. He just says "SOPA BAD, STOP SOPA!"

Maybe we should start a thread on that.  I apologize to the OP for the threadjack.

Bottom line, I didn't see what the heck that had to do with federal funding for PBS...

You brought up the "If we would stop meddling in their society, they would leave us alone." And no, they wouldn't leave us alone. Our involvement in the ME was at its lowest point in a decade when 9/11 happened. They want to destroy "The Great Satan" (that's what they call the United States by the way) and they want to destroy Israel.  It's the stated goal of several governments, and of both the lead sunni (Muslim Brotherhood) and Shi'a (Al Qaeda) organizations as well as Hamas and Hezbollah.  They are at war with us, we are only at war with Al Qaeda.

My point about PBS is that it is an organization that doesn't need federal funds and doesn't fit in the context of cutting to the bone.  You know who else does not need federal funds? Oil and Natural Gas companies.  They will keep on exploring and developing the resources if you pulled every subsidy from them.  It really is a good parallel if you think about it. 

There's waste all over the government and we need to start cutting.  Starting with Oil/NG subsidies and PBS.  What's next?

Somewhere in the Middle East there's a guy on a message board writing the same thing from a different point of view; there will always be a segment of the Western world that despises Islam and which will always seek to do them.

Cannot argue with that one bit.

The game's the game.