Should the government strip federal funding for public broadcasting?

It is proposed this action would save over 400 million a year. Hmmm. I love PBS and NPR, and the budget deficit is like what, a gazillion trillion dollars? So What's a measly 400 million matter?

A no vote here.

Yes, this makes perfect sense to me

Cut funding for everything back home and continue to go bawlz out in the middle east

Cut funding for PBS, unions, teachers, roadways....

but start that ubertech TSA shit, and give USDA inspectors a 100,000 starting salary, and drop money on cyber security (cuz teh interwebz is serious busness)

I vote to keep pbs and cut the DEA budget by 400 million per year. That and quit 'nation building' in iraqistan.

No. They can cut budgets in other areas that are much more unneccessary

No. They can cut budgets in other areas that are much more unneccessary

strip it all and then lets add to a budget we can balance.

NO! PBS and NPR are a dying breed. Real news in America. Specials like Frontline are the best investigative reporting being done today.
http://blog.chrisbishop.com/photo/1280/3444680085/1/tumblr_lh0wrj7QMS1qbty66

strip it all and then lets add to a budget we can balance.

So take the money and flush it. Got it

So take the money and flush it. Got it

flush it? oh yeah, that must be a reference to our economy, job, or housing market, they're all in the toilet. better keep flushing, glub, glub.

flush it all. Except the vitals. End the crusade and prohibition on Marijuana, c'mon.

Voted 'No' because I know douchebag politicians won't cut funding for military aid on the offensive/

Edited by Skillium, 13 March 2011 - 01:26 AM.
spelling

I don't see why the money can't be cut from Military spending, or perhaps stopping the war on drugs. But who am I kidding, they would never do that

flush it? oh yeah, that must be a reference to our economy, job, or housing market, they're all in the toilet. better keep flushing, glub, glub.

Economy, national defense. Either way, it wont help at this point

I don't see why the money can't be cut from Military spending, or perhaps stopping the war on drugs. But who am I kidding, they would never do that

Because too many members of congress are in bed with the defense industry, mostly.

Abolish the FCC first, save $335 billion a year.

It's not about $.

Republicans want to end PBS and NPR because they expand people's minds and indoctrinate kids to be tolerant towards people who are different than themselves and they (occasionally) counter the Corporate media.

Having said that, if NPR really raises $6 for every $1 they get from Uncle Sam, then do they really NEED Uncle Sam?

Ya, when the President of PBS gets paid more than the President of the US, do they really need Uncle Sam?

FUCK NO.

The reason the UK is more intelligent than our sorry-asses is because instead of getting their information from FOX and MSNBC, they get it from the BBC, which has to legally remain unbiased.

Here, noone gives a fuck about NPR, and it's the best network we have...their discussions are actually open and considerate. They find music that is independent, and they support local foods and non-corporate garbage. Their political debates actually don't resort to name-calling, bickering, and all of that partisan bullshit.

And its public funding is only a very small portion. Long live NPR.

These cuts can go fuck themselves.

Edited by rex8000, 07 March 2011 - 05:00 AM.

Sesame Street, bro. Sesame Street. Can't cut funding or Big Bird will turn blue ahd have to join the circus.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WooaGkKSwpY"]YouTube - Follow That Bird - Blue Bird Of Happiness[/ame]

Aren't NPR and PBS biased though? And since less than 15% of their revenue comes from the state, why do they need it? They've got philanthropic statist billionaires that will gladly bankroll them.

Having said that, if NPR really raises $6 for every $1 they get from Uncle Sam, then do they really NEED Uncle Sam?

Yes, so NPR and PBS can still pump out amazing programs.