Obama cut nearly a trillion dollars from defense spending. Romney plans to increase it.
Romney plans to repeal Obamacare, which the CBO says would add a trillion dollars to the deficit over the next decade alone. That is true, in part, because Obamacare is expected to help lower the rate of medical inflation if it is fully implemented.
Finally, Obama wants to raise government revenue, while Romney does not.
One side is serious about deficits. The other wants to use them to cut PBS.
Came to debunk that claim, glad to see it’s already been taken care of. Canada also has several separate public broadcasters at the provincial level, as well.
Really, you’re unfamiliar with the roughly $500 billion in 2011 cuts and the roughly $500 billion defense sequester cuts? That seems unlikely to me, but I’ll dig up some cites if you really want. But I somehow doubt that you’re really not familiar with the difference between the candidate’s policies on this point.
Because Afghanistan is now in the budget rather than off-budget?
Just a guess.
For comparison purposes, the annual PBS appropriation is about equal to six hours of the Pentagon. At one point the USA was spending more on its military than the rest of world combined. I think I’ve read that now it’s “only” more than the next five highest budgets combined.
From the link:
40% of the world’s military spending is by the United States.
PBS is not intended to be merely “entertainment.” What a dismissive idea of television you have.
You obviously don’t understand economics. More channels does not mean everyone who wants to be in TV makes a living. It means that some channels can’t compete for enough audience to stay afloat.
Pretty sure I heard William F. Buckley make the same argument when he was alive, the ingrate. PBS stations treated him quite well, airing his Firing Line debates.
Now, this is an online poll, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s bad. There are legitimate ways to conduct online polling, and Abacus is an established polling firm. The article doesn’t detail the methodology.
I think that there are likely to be significantly different attitudes towards the CBC depending on how the questions are worded. People think differently about CBC radio, CBC TV, and “the CBC” as an organization.
To underline this point, compare the current state of PBS versus TLC. They started about the same, with comparable content and purpose, but TLC switched over to a commercial model.
Quick, which one does “Ouch, My Balls!” air on now, and which one still serves its intended purpose?
I agree with your conclusion but I find your reasoning questionable. The fates of those channels demonstrate that public funding is needed to sustain … let’s call it enlightening television*. I think anyone trying to argue otherwise has a lot of facts they need to explain to support that argument.
The disagreement is over how good enlightening television is and how bad public funding is. I happen to think the former is very good and the latter is not particularly bad; someone who sees little virtue in the former and wants to minimize the latter is unlikely to take the fate of TLC as the cautionary tale I’m seeing it used as.
*On any meaningful scale; I don’t think Mythbusters has gone entirely to shit quite yet, but it’s one show.