The Presidential Candidate Debates

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

Sesame Street is my only break from parenting in the morning long enough to finish my cup of coffee.

Don't do it Romney, you'll lose my vote.

PBS won't go away if they just get advertisers and run it like a business.
Oh the horror!!

PBS and NPR already have commercials. Their claim to be free of that is just false. They are shorter and of a different style than traditional adverts, but they are adverts all the same.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sesame Street is my only break from parenting in the morning long enough to finish my cup of coffee.

Don't do it Romney, you'll lose my vote.

PBS won't go away if they just get advertisers and run it like a business.
Oh the horror!!

Exactly, Sesame Street is not only financially viable but a hugely profitable enterprise. They earn 15-17 million per year in licensing.

Which would only be a fraction of what it actually costs to produce.

If you can’t produce a puppet show for less than 15 million dollars....... well it says all you need to know about publicly funded enterprises. An apt metaphor for big government.

[loumeinhart 0]

Quote

Which would only be a fraction of what it actually costs to produce.

A portion of my paycheck funds a TV show that I've never watched

yikes

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sesame Street is my only break from parenting in the morning long enough to finish my cup of coffee.

Don't do it Romney, you'll lose my vote.

PBS won't go away if they just get advertisers and run it like a business.
Oh the horror!!

Exactly, Sesame Street is not only financially viable but a hugely profitable enterprise. They earn 15-17 million per year in licensing.

Which would only be a fraction of what it actually costs to produce.

It is about 1/3rd of their income.

Do you really think that Sesame Street is not financially viable without taxpayer subsidies? Licensing is just one of many income streams for them.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

A portion of my paycheck funds a TV show that I've never watched

yikes

A portion of your paycheck goes to the maintenance of roads you have never driven on too.

What is it with people who think their taxes should only be spent on themselves. How selfish can one get?

[DanG 1]

Sesame Street is one hour of programming a day. It is the most successful hour of programming on PBS by far. Implying that PBS doesn't need any government help to function because Sesame Street makes money is inaccurate.

Most of the government funding goes to help local TV and radio stations afford to operate. The production of content is one expense, but broadcasting that content is a whole nother issue.

- Dan G

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Sesame Street is one hour of programming a day. It is the most successful hour of programming on PBS by far. Implying that PBS doesn't need any government help to function because Sesame Street makes money is inaccurate.

Most of the government funding goes to help local TV and radio stations afford to operate. The production of content is one expense, but broadcasting that content is a whole nother issue.

I personally am against funding for public broadcasting. I just don't think it is needed. The worthwhile shows are commercially viable (not just Sesame Street, but also the New Hour, Nightly Business Report, Car Talk, Prairie Home Companion and others). The ones that aren't commercially viable (and that is a very small proportion) could go away and nobody would miss it.

Anyway, the idea that Romney is serious about deficit reduction because he wants to cut funding for PBS and Amtrak is laughable. Combined they are not even a rounding error and there is no way to seriously attack the deficit without reducing Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[normiss 798]

"worthwhile shows are commercially viable"

That's funny right there.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Anyway, the idea that Romney is serious about deficit reduction because he wants to cut funding for PBS and Amtrak is laughable. Combined they are not even a rounding error and there is no way to seriously attack the deficit without reducing Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense.

this.

across the board cuts. across the board tax increases. where no taxes are paid, across the board cuts in tax credits.

--
Rob

[DanG 1]

I dispute that the News Hour is commercially viable in its present form. It would end up being like all the other "news" shows, devoting time to the Kardashians and American Idol in order to get up ratings. The good thing about public broadcasting is that they can do the quality programs like the News Hour, and all the news programs on NPR, without pandering to the ratings machine. I think public funding for broadcasting is valuable, but it wouldn't be the end of the world if it went away. We'd just have a couple fewer sources of real information, which nobody appears to care about these day anyhow.

- Dan G

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

You just don't have much else to say today, huh.

Maybe BHO will show up for the next debate. Or, maybe he is worn out and can't stand the thought of inheriting a huge mess again.

I though your religion didn't support liars.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Which would only be a fraction of what it actually costs to produce.

A portion of my paycheck funds a TV show that I've never watched

yikes

A much larger portion of my paycheck supported a war in Iraq that I strongly opposed.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Quote

You just don't have much else to say today, huh.

Maybe BHO will show up for the next debate. Or, maybe he is worn out and can't stand the thought of inheriting a huge mess again.

I though your religion didn't support liars.

My religion supports the government. What do you make of that?

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

I dispute that the News Hour is commercially viable in its present form. It would end up being like all the other "news" shows, devoting time to the Kardashians and American Idol in order to get up ratings. The good thing about public broadcasting is that they can do the quality programs like the News Hour, and all the news programs on NPR, without pandering to the ratings machine. I think public funding for broadcasting is valuable, but it wouldn't be the end of the world if it went away. We'd just have a couple fewer sources of real information, which nobody appears to care about these day anyhow.

I admit I haven't watched the New Hour in years. I did used to watch it. I just don't watch much TV news in general. Anyway, it is hard for me to believe it is less commercially viable than a large part of the news shows that are on cable television, although I admit I haven't done any sort of market research.

I do enjoy the sorts of news programs on NPR. PRI produces a fair amount of content very similar to what NPR produces in house and does not directly get any public subsidy (although a good bit of their financing comes from program fees which are government subsidized, so it is indirectly supported). I don't think long form news necessarily means it isn't commercially viable.

Anyway, there is a model for radio that is listener supported in Christian Radio. A lot of them depend on user contributions and fund raising and they seem to be doing just fine. I don't listen to them but I am not forced to subsidize them either.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Which would only be a fraction of what it actually costs to produce.

If you can’t produce a puppet show for less than 15 million dollars....... well it says all you need to know about publicly funded enterprises. An apt metaphor for big government.

"As of season 41 in 2010, there are 4,256 episodes."

This suggests an annual run of 100 episodes per year, so that becomes $150k/show, or 450k if as stated this money represents just a third of the expense. Hardly an example of excessive spending.

70 or 80 million Americans saw this show in their youth. There are few roads in which 1/3 of Americans have all travelled on. (and recent freeways have averaged a couple hundred million dollars per mile). This looks like one of the most efficient uses of federal dollars we can find.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

I personally am against (public) funding for public broadcasting. I just don't think it is needed.

Executives at public broadcasting said the same thing - to potential donors.

Federal funding only accounts for about 15% of their funding. They could certainly make that up with cutting costs, increased efficiency/productivity just like any other company is constantly having to accomplish. Also, since they aren't really non-commercial, they could just "charge" more for their commercials or run more of them.

Quote

Anyway, the idea that Romney is serious about deficit reduction because he wants to cut funding for PBS and Amtrak is laughable. Combined they are not even a rounding error and there is no way to seriously attack the deficit without reducing Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense.

Public broadcasting is it a symbol of all the things that do deserve to get cut. Even the little things, if they deserve to get cut, should get cut, it is that simple. Also, Romney and Ryan are proposing real taking on the big entitlement programs in a meaningful way. Of course they may not succeed, but who really thinks that Obama is going to even try.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 2,991]

>Also, Romney and Ryan are proposing real taking on the big entitlement programs
>in a meaningful way.

During the debate, didn't Romney say he'd restore $716 billion that Obama cut from Medicare? That seems like a lot of spending for someone who claims to want to "take on the big entitlement programs."

[airdvr 210]

Quote

>Also, Romney and Ryan are proposing real taking on the big entitlement programs
>in a meaningful way.

During the debate, didn't Romney say he'd restore $716 billion that Obama cut from Medicare? That seems like a lot of spending for someone who claims to want to "take on the big entitlement programs."

Make up your mind Bill, he's either lying or he's not.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

>Also, Romney and Ryan are proposing real taking on the big entitlement programs
>in a meaningful way.

During the debate, didn't Romney say he'd restore $716 billion that Obama cut from Medicare? That seems like a lot of spending for someone who claims to want to "take on the big entitlement programs."

Plus he wants to significantly increase military spending.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[billvon 2,991]

>Make up your mind Bill, he's either lying or he's not.

Why can't he be doing both?

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

>Also, Romney and Ryan are proposing real taking on the big entitlement programs
>in a meaningful way.

During the debate, didn't Romney say he'd restore $716 billion that Obama cut from Medicare? That seems like a lot of spending for someone who claims to want to "take on the big entitlement programs."

Obama's cut was nothing more than a reduction in how much providers are compensated for providing services. This is done without determining that providers are expecting too much, it was done by the gov't deciding that they simply wanted to pay less and expect that doctors would have to put up with it.

This trend to to reduce compensation for services isn't new, but the recent actions is big, and will will result in more and more providers deciding to not serve medicare patients. Of course forcing doctors to work for the gov't at whatever rate the gov't chooses is required for socialized medicine to work, so Obama is just getting a head start on this,

That is not meaningful reform, unless the reform you seek is socialized health care, all doctors working for the government, or not working at all.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 2,991]

>This trend to to reduce compensation for services isn't new, but the recent actions is
>big, and will will result in more and more providers deciding to not serve medicare
>patients.

That may be. That's what it takes to cut the budget. Romney wants to undo that.

>That is not meaningful reform, unless the reform you seek is socialized health care

?? So reducing government spending is socialism? Interesting angle.

[kelpdiver 2]

end result is that he's not exactly taking on entitlement spending when he's "restoring" nearly a trillion dollars in spending.

Think of how many episodes of Sesame Street that would allow.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

>This trend to to reduce compensation for services isn't new, but the recent actions is
>big, and will will result in more and more providers deciding to not serve medicare
>patients.

That may be. That's what it takes to cut the budget. Romney wants to undo that.

Causing doctors to no longer serve medicare patients will certainly reduce spending, but it is a clear CUT in services that will be provided.

Choosing to reduce spending by making it even harder for medicare patients to find doctors willing to serve them, and then spending that money to subsidize Obamacare so it looks like it costs less than it actually does, is not what Obama wants to admit to doing. He didn't actually cut spending anyway, he just transferred the CUT in medicare to Obamacare and PRETENDS that it won't result in a reduction in services.

Pretending to cut spending in this manner is not real reform, it is the kind of cut in medicare that would result in conservatives being accused of throwing grandma over a cliff.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 2,991]

>Causing doctors to no longer serve medicare patients will certainly reduce spending,
>but it is a clear CUT in services that will be provided.

Agreed. All cuts are painful. You can't just say "cut things I don't like" because someone, somewhere needs it.

>Pretending to cut spending in this manner is not real reform, it is the kind of cut in
>medicare that would result in conservatives being accused of throwing grandma over a
>cliff.

Right. Now conservatives are claiming Obama is throwing grandma over a cliff. (Although they're running into "the boy who cried wolf" thing at this point.)