• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why are democrats focusing on Big Bird?

Unless you think Big Bird still needs needs bird seed put on the table for him by the government then please quit whining about a specific example and look at the big picture. When looking to cut costs, there s nothing wrong with starting by cutting the things that make you say "why in the **** are we spending money on that?" That's not the reaction overall to military or other big things, so much more analysis has to go into budgeting those than the two brain cells it takes to cut some smaller things.
"whining"? Awesome. There's some sort of emotional involvement on your end. Good for you.

There's nothing wrong with cutting crap from a budget.
But that's not really the point I was making.
I was pointing out that touting a plan to shave 0.0001% of the budget offers no rebuttal against a claim that Romney's is just talking the talk and is not actually serious about the budget. It's not exactly something that gets a budget hawk fired up. It's pandering to some other demographic with a very thin veneer of budget hawk lain next to it.
You should tout things that actually are meaningful. The little things which are a fraction of a fraction of a percent, leave those for the details rather than you big picture speeches. Unless the point he trying to make isn't really about the budget at all.
He's pandering to some group other than people who're serious about the budget. People who're serious about the budget realize that he's talking about something less than chump change.
 
Popularity doesn't have jack **** to do with need!
Obviously, the 69% disagree with you.....they do feel the need for their tax dollars to fund public broadcasting. It does fill a need in our world, if it did not, then it would not be popular.

Your diversion to "need" is false, what the public wants is what they pay for.

If you want to get into "needs", who is playing "nanny"? You?
 
Well isn't Medicare a big part of the budget, because he didn't spend a lot of time talking about his voucher program. He could have make himself more clear on that and how it's designed to work. Will everybody always have a choice between vouchers or government only, or is he going to put the younger generation strictly on vouchers one day. What if his plan doesn't work or has trouble passing.... is there any way he would let the system go entirely to a voucher program right away???
Yeah I think you might be right.
But the way out govt works atm is that there're certain things which would cost politicians contributions from the more entrenched lobbies. The way things are set up, they're a lot of rewards for the Congrescritters et al to do things which do not benefit the country. The system is sort of perverse and screwy, imho.

Sesame Street does not have as strong of a lobbying effort as the AARP.
 
That someone would list this as a reason for the deficit while saying we should increase military spending is a joke. The joke is on the voting public because he thinks you are dumb enough to think it is important. There is a bigger issue here that I do find comical. How can this corporation that lives off donations and subsidies produce such high quality products? Nevermind the children programs FrontLine blows away any investigative program on networks or cable.
 
And since that is the example he gave it just proves that he is not serious about cutting the deficit. Because anyone who is serious about cutting the deficit would not list PBS as their first example of a cut they would make. It is just not important enough to matter to anyone who really cares about cutting the deficit. It would be an excellent example for someone who wants to pretend about cutting the deficit to get votes however.

Romney did not pick this as his first example. Romney made the statement that he would suggest cuts based on whether or not it was worth borrowing money from China to fund the program. Even then, the Romney used Leher as the example, not Sesame Street, which was an afterthought.
 
LOL!!!
If Obama were inclined to put in the minimal effort, HE could find a thousand more Sesame Streets. Since Romney is more motivated, I think he could easily come up with the necessary thousands of cuts to equal real money.
It'd be ten thousand Sesame Street to equal 1% of the fed budget. A hundred thousand Sesame Streets to equal 10% of the budget.

I am just not seeing this as any thing of significance budget-wise. A large percentage of something small is still something small.
If Romney was actually trying to promote his budget cutting agenda, he wouldn't've talked about something so insignificant. If he had been actually trying to promote his budget cutting, he would have talked about something else.
 
It'd be ten thousand Sesame Street to equal 1% of the fed budget. A hundred thousand Sesame Streets to equal 10% of the budget.

I am just not seeing this as any thing of significance budget-wise. A large percentage of something small is still something small.
If Romney was actually trying to promote his budget cutting agenda, he wouldn't've talked about something so insignificant. If he had been actually trying to promote his budget cutting, he would have talked about something else.
You mean you didn't hear the dog whistle?
 
Romney did not pick this as his first example. Romney made the statement that he would suggest cuts based on whether or not it was worth borrowing money from China to fund the program. Even then, the Romney used Leher as the example, not Sesame Street, which was an afterthought.
If he picked all of the CPB funding, ($300mil) he would be talking about less than 0.01% of the Federal budget. I am still colored unimpressed.

The reason why he chose that examples was not for the budget cutting sense it makes.
 
That someone would list this as a reason for the deficit while saying we should increase military spending is a joke. The joke is on the voting public because he thinks you are dumb enough to think it is important. There is a bigger issue here that I do find comical. How can this corporation that lives off donations and subsidies produce such high quality products? Nevermind the children programs FrontLine blows away any investigative program on networks or cable.

You probably have a point, because he didn't mention anything else he would cut in the entire debate.
 
Romney did not pick this as his first example. Romney made the statement that he would suggest cuts based on whether or not it was worth borrowing money from China to fund the program. Even then, the Romney used Leher as the example, not Sesame Street, which was an afterthought.

I think that's the problem. He is vague. He should open up about what he will cut. Obama says he'd rather raise taxes on the wealthy than make cuts. Romney rather cut everybody's taxes (which he claims are revenue neutral) and up military spending, but doesn't mention anything he will cut except PBS.

As somebody pointed out, PBS is a tiny fraction of the budget... nearly nothing, so where are the big cuts going to come from???
 
It'd be ten thousand Sesame Street to equal 1% of the fed budget. A hundred thousand Sesame Streets to equal 10% of the budget.

I am just not seeing this as any thing of significance budget-wise. A large percentage of something small is still something small.
If Romney was actually trying to promote his budget cutting agenda, he wouldn't've talked about something so insignificant. If he had been actually trying to promote his budget cutting, he would have talked about something else.

Take out Education and you'd have about 300,000 or more Sesame Streets. Think of how many Billions we could cut if we got rid of Commerce, as well.

Dude...Sesame Street is just a start.
 
If he picked all of the CPB funding, ($300mil) he would be talking about less than 0.01% of the Federal budget. I am still colored unimpressed.

The reason why he chose that examples was not for the budget cutting sense it makes.

If he's honest, he'll be taking a risk and I think Romney wants to avoid specifics and avoid the risk. I didn't think somebody with a strategy like that deserves to run the country. To understand his values, we need to understand what he is willing to cut and what he is not willing to cut.

I personally don't buy that he'll balance the budget and pay down the deficit. Nearly every president makes those promises, so I don't take them seriously. I just know we don't need another Hoover as president, and by that I am saying that sometimes cuts to the budget can be worse than cutting taxes. So what is he going to cut and not cut?

I would trust Ron Paul more than Romney. At least we know he isn't a neocon, and he wouldn't increase military spending. He would keep it low and work within the current size of the budget to find cuts. Romney is increasing the budget and then searching to find the cuts. Who knows if he'd be a warhawk because of his attitude towards the military budget as well. I give Ron Paul more trust with this than Romney.
 
Do you fact-check anything you say? Or do you just spout random things without expecting someone here to call you on it?


According to CPB's operating budget for fiscal year 2013, they have received approximately 444 MILLION dollars from federal funding.

Now, setting aside the fact that you were completely and utterly wrong in your statement. Why do you believe that the government should fund tv programs?

Ironically, you were wrong TWICE in that. Sesame Street isn't produced by PBS. Sesame Workshop produces Sesame Street. Apparently, you don't know what I'm talking about, but let me give you an analogy - saying that our government gives money to Sesame Street is like saying that the Innocence of Muslims is a film made by youtube.

And the reason that the government should continue giving grants for film and television is because it creates non-commercial media, which is so essential. We need objectivity. We need news that isn't 100% opinion. Try listening to NPR for about three hours, then switch it over to Limbaugh for three hours. Telling the truth in American doesn't make you a millionaire, and I want to see a future in which reporters don't need to lie to stay on the air. Or one in which Big Bird says "I'm a Mac" and Oscar the Grouch says "I'm a PC." The CPB ensures that this is possible.

.01% of our budget goes to the CPB, part of their budget goes to PBS. That 455 million you cited doesn't go to PBS. It goes to the CBP who are nonpartisan group that gives out grants. PBS gets grants from them. I think ensuring that there will be objective news and educational media in this country is worth .01% of our budget. If the government funded PBS directly, it would be more like .0025% of our budget.
 
Take out Education and you'd have about 300,000 or more Sesame Streets. Think of how many Billions we could cut if we got rid of Commerce, as well.
Dude...Sesame Street is just a start.
Maybe it is. If it is, it's a weak start.

If you were hiring for a position which oversaw a $100k budget, you had budget cutting in mind as a priority, and you were interviewing someone for the position and he chose to take his interview time to tout that he could cut $0.10 or $10 from that $100k budget, what would you think?

Personally I'd suspect that his priorities are not in line with mine since he's trying to sell me with minnows when I am looking for tunas.

It was a dumb example which doesn't speak to budget cutting.
 
No, I do think it's a bad thing that corporations won't pay their wage earning employees a viable wage.

But the Republicans aren't going to do anything about that either.


what is a viable wage and why should US corporations pay higher than the competition if the competition is equally skilled?
 
I found this photo pretty funny, but I don't understand why so much focus on big bird and PBS. The network has viewers, lots of viewers, and should be capable of transitioning over to a standard network not owned by the government. E.G. Advertise or go back to asking for public funding.

View attachment 67135745

You cannot take anything away from Libs. Just look at footage of Obama in 2007 when asked what he would cut... the military. Thath's all folkth!
Libs can gut the military, but put Big Bird and a long outdated PBS into the real world to live or die like other enterprises? Not a farking chance.

They know PBS will go the way of Air Amerika... with one exception... PBS will have little bits survive elsewhere.

I miss Air Amerika... it was wild, whacky waydeo.
 
I found this photo pretty funny, but I don't understand why so much focus on big bird and PBS. The network has viewers, lots of viewers, and should be capable of transitioning over to a standard network not owned by the government. E.G. Advertise or go back to asking for public funding.

View attachment 67135745

Democrats aren't focusing on Big Bird. Mind telling me why republicans are attacking him?
 
what is a viable wage and why should US corporations pay higher than the competition if the competition is equally skilled?


What? Who's skilled? What laws protect labor from abuse in 3rd world nations? Protect people from toxic exposure to carcniogen waste from corporations polluting?

Where is this level field?
 
Democrats aren't focusing on Big Bird. Mind telling me why republicans are attacking him?

We're not attacking him... we are trying to set him free.
 
mike100712.jpg
 
Thanks for the reply! I definitely understand the importance of PBS. I grew up on Sesame street (not literally :2razz: ). I just believe that PBS has some intelligent employees that will be able to turn their private network into a public one when/if the government cuts funding.

Also, I think that this photo is taken fromt he Political Arena game on iPhone and Android.

PBS makes hundreds of millions a year and has high paid executives. With a 16 trillion dollar debt if we cannot cut PBS, a service that is making money and can make it on its own, how does this country cut any expense?
 
PBS makes hundreds of millions a year and has high paid executives. With a 16 trillion dollar debt if we cannot cut PBS, a service that is making money and can make it on its own, how does this country cut any expense?

I'm glad someone is bringing up the point that because the big ticket items would likely not be cut means that smaller ticket items could be cut, nevertheless, I disagree about the end course.

PBS has too much to provide, not just pure educational value, but also serves a means of putting out conservative ideals as well. Previously Think-tank, oft funded through specific foundations, along with public funds had brought great programming for people to take in. This is continuing with Ideas in Action. It provides the opportunity for serious intellectual discussion, lacking in both liberal and conservative private- sector, to penetrate for the population.
 
I'm glad someone is bringing up the point that because the big ticket items would likely not be cut means that smaller ticket items could be cut, nevertheless, I disagree about the end course.

PBS has too much to provide, not just pure educational value, but also serves a means of putting out conservative ideals as well. Previously Think-tank, oft funded through specific foundations, along with public funds had brought great programming for people to take in. This is continuing with Ideas in Action. It provides the opportunity for serious intellectual discussion, lacking in both liberal and conservative private- sector, to penetrate for the population.

The point remains, PBS makes money so why should the taxpayer subsidize it? It receives 440 million dollars a year which is a drop in the bucket but if you cannot cut an entity that makes money on its own what are people willing to cut? We have a 16 trillion dollar debt and cutting the size of govt. is mandatory
 
The point remains, PBS makes money so why should the taxpayer subsidize it? It receives 440 million dollars a year which is a drop in the bucket but if you cannot cut an entity that makes money on its own what are people willing to cut? We have a 16 trillion dollar debt and cutting the size of govt. is mandatory

I look at it as a proper educational/civic contribution rather than a purely budgetary issue. To me, it accomplishes far more than it is a burden. My conservative (or nationalist, Federalist)impulses lead me to value that over the budget.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom