Big Bird's Nest is well Feathered

[Pony Boy]

The IRS filing shows Sesame Workshop gets about $6 million a year in "government grants" (which are not itemized). He doesn't need it.

Big Bird is richer than Mitt Romney. Sesame Workshop (successor to Children's Television Workshop), reported to the IRS a $356-million net worth as of June 30, 2011, compared to Romney's estimated worth of about $250-million.

Obviously, Big Bird's nest is well-feathered. His diet isn't exactly bird seed.

Despite scare headlines, (such as HuffPo's "Mitt Romney's Big Bird Attack Threatens Thousands of U.S. Jobs") this avian is no endangered species.

Sesame Workshop boasts its $356-million value even after it paid $180-million in 2000 to buy-out the rights to the Muppets from the late Jim Henson.

Sesame Workshop has a liquid cushion of over $130-million in cash and securities, while other parts of the current worth are labeled "intangible" assets. Royalty receipts alone generate $47 million a year, thanks to annual sales of $515 million in Sesame Street branded products, according to Forbes.


How does Sesame Street rank among other best-selling entertainment franchises? Forbes' article describes Sesame Street's neighborhood like this:

Disney Princess (Disney) $1.6 billion in 2011 retail sales
Star Wars (Lucasfilm) $1.5 billion
Pooh (Disney) $1.09 billion
Cars (Disney) $1.05 billion
Hello Kitty (Sanrio) $800 million
Mickey & Friends (Disney) $750 million
WWE (WWE) $700 million
Toy Story (Disney) $685 million
Peanuts (Iconix, Peanuts Worldwide) $600 million
Sesame Street (Sesame Workshop) $515 million
Disney Fairies (Disney) $435 million
Thomas the Tank Engine (Hit Entertainment) $390 million
Garfield (Paws Inc.) $370 million
Dora the Explorer (Nickelodeon) $330 million
SpongeBob (Nickelodeon) $330 million
Spiderman (Marvel/Disney) $325 million
Ben 10 (Cartoon Network) $295 million
Angry Birds (Rovio) $250 million
Batman (DC/Warner) $245 million


http://www.newsmax.com/ErnestIstook/Big-Bird-Romney-grants/2012/10/08/id/459121

[NUB]

You do realize that Sesame Workshop is a non-profit business that produces educational programming, right? And you also realize that PBS, which is what the big flub "Big Bird" stuff is actually about, is a separate entity from Sesame Workshop, right? RIGHT?

[Pony Boy]

You do realize that Sesame Workshop is a non-profit business that produces educational programming, right? And you also realize that PBS, which is what the big flub "Big Bird" stuff is actually about, is a separate entity from Sesame Workshop, right? RIGHT?

Sesame Workshop has a liquid cushion of over $130-million in cash and securities

I think your missing the point, I know it's about PBS and you know it's about PBS but Obama is the one claming that Big Bird will be an endangered species if Romney has his way.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KJmVKU2p_nw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Pony Boy]

You do realize that Sesame Workshop is a non-profit business that produces educational programming, right? And you also realize that PBS, which is what the big flub "Big Bird" stuff is actually about, is a separate entity from Sesame Workshop, right? RIGHT?

How do you like the one....

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/z2Pmx47rGCw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[NUB]

This is about a much larger debate concerning taxes and spending cuts. If you think the focus is on an image you are a simple minded fool.

[Pony Boy]

Big Bird Wants Out of Campaign Ad


Big Bird, it seems, isn’t thrilled about his cameo in the presidential race.

The folks at Sesame Street are asking the Obama campaign to pull down a TV ad released Tuesday that mocks Mitt Romney for vowing to yank the subsidy to PBS.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/10/09/big-bird-wants-out-of-campaign-ad/

[Pony Boy]

This is about a much larger debate concerning taxes and spending cuts. If you think the focus is on an image you are a simple minded fool.

"No shiate Sherlock" ......... nothing gets by you does it? Getting PBS off the government tit is called a spending cut.....

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This is about a much larger debate concerning taxes and spending cuts. If you think the focus is on an image you are a simple minded fool.

That much has already been well established.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/197474_424684550923963_1536568569_n.jpg

[BroncoInferno]

"No shiate Sherlock" ......... nothing gets by you does it? Getting PBS off the government tit is called a spending cut.....

Spending on PBS represents 0.012% of the budget. If your concern is to reduce government spending, it would be easier to take you seriously if you focused your ire on more bloated agencies (the military, for instance). If all PBS spending went away tomorrow, it would make effectively no impact on the budget or do anything to reduce the deficit.

[Requiem]

Of course Pony Boy would start this thread. Yep, lets get rid of PBS funding, but keep military spending (defense) in our budget at all-time high's for absolutely no reason.

[barryr]

If anyone has made this an issue, it's Obama himself who seems to have the need to mention Big Bird in multiple speeches. But like everything else about him, it is a failed message. But one can understand why'd like rather waste time on that than have to talk about the economy, raising taxes on everybody, his failed foreign policies(one guesses he has one), etc.

[Pony Boy]

That much has already been well established.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/197474_424684550923963_1536568569_n.jpg

Do you think Obama has room on that plate for the heads of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry? The way I look at it he is 3 for 3 right now.

[Rohirrim]

PBS does a whole lot of good for this country.

It's worth every penny.

[Rohirrim]

Do you think Obama has room on that plate for the heads of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry? The way I look at it he is 3 for 3 right now.

Some of the stuff you post, like this, is just downright unAmerican.

[Pony Boy]

Spending on PBS represents 0.012% of the budget. If your concern is to reduce government spending, it would be easier to take you seriously if you focused your ire on more bloated agencies (the military, for instance). If all PBS spending went away tomorrow, it would make effectively no impact on the budget or do anything to reduce the deficit.

Corporation for Public Broadcasting gets $445 million per year in public funds but I guess the way you look at it it's ok to put that on a Chinese credit card and expect our children and grandchildren to pay for it all later. I see where you are coming from, they all watch Big Bird so they should pay the bill.

[Rohirrim]

Corporation for Public Broadcasting gets $445 million per year in public funds but I guess the way you look at it it's ok to put that on a Chinese credit card and expect our children and grandchildren to pay for it all later. I see where you are coming from, they all watch Big Bird so they should pay the bill.

What else are we putting on that Chinese credit card? A bloated military? Subsidies to oil companies? Compared with what goes to PBS, it's not even worth talking about.

[Pony Boy]

PBS does a whole lot of good for this country.

It's worth every penny.

Then put it on the Federal tax form where you can check a box and donate money to PBS, not tax money you owe but money directly from you bank account and we will see how much people feel about PBS.

[DenverBrit]

Amazing!!

Taxing the wealthy won't put a dent in the deficit, but cutting off $6 million to PBS will? Ha!

[Rohirrim]

Then put it on the Federal tax form where you can check a box and donate money to PBS, not tax money you owe but money directly from you bank account and we will see how much people feel about PBS.

Okay. And let's do that with education too. How about wars? How about being on a jury? How about building highways? How about farm subsidies? How about everything government does? Let's make every spending issue subject to the democratic process. Let's allow the American people to vote on every tax dollar spent. Then we no longer have to worry about representative government. We can simply pick and choose the stuff we don't like and refuse to support it.

If we don't have children, **** schools. Why should we pay for them? If we don't drive, **** the highways. We don't use them. etcetera

[DenverBrit]

Then put it on the Federal tax form where you can check a box and donate money to PBS, not tax money you owe but money directly from you bank account and we will see how much people feel about PBS.

Great idea.

Let's do the same for Corporate tax breaks, bloated military, tax breaks for mega yachts and end tax breaks for church real estate holdings.

[Rohirrim]

Great idea.

Let's do the same for Corporate tax breaks, bloated military, tax breaks for mega yachts and end tax breaks for church real estate holdings.

And $70,000 write-offs for dancing horses. Ha!

[Pony Boy]

Some of the stuff you post, like this, is just downright unAmerican.

There's the pot calling the kettle black big words from a socialist like you. If LABF and others on this site want to carry Osama bin Laden head around on a stick then they should also take full responsibility for the lives that have been lost by the complete incompetence of the commander-in-chief.

[Pony Boy]

Okay. And let's do that with education too. How about wars? How about being on a jury? How about building highways? How about farm subsidies? How about everything government does? Let's make every spending issue subject to the democratic process. Let's allow the American people to vote on every tax dollar spent. Then we no longer have to worry about representative government. We can simply pick and choose the stuff we don't like and refuse to support it.

If we don't have children, **** schools. Why should we pay for them? If we don't drive, **** the highways. We don't use them. etcetera

Apples and oranges

Hummm....... let's see. Circle the one that is not a high national priority for federal funding?

Infrastructure, PBS, Education or Military

[BroncoInferno]

Corporation for Public Broadcasting gets $445 million per year in public funds but I guess the way you look at it it's ok to put that on a Chinese credit card and expect our children and grandchildren to pay for it all later. I see where you are coming from, they all watch Big Bird so they should pay the bill.

So, your contention is that we have to borrow money from China in order to pay off the cost of running PBS, which represents a whopping 0.012% of the budget? You're real bright :rofl:

By the way, love how you right-wingers are jumping right in line with Romney on his "we can't borrow money from China!" jag. Of course, we didin't hear a peep about that when Bush started two wars that he didn't bother to pay for or when Cheney said "deficits don't matter."

[BroncoInferno]

Apples and oranges

Hummm....... let's see. Circle the one that is not a high national priority for federal funding?

Infrastructure, PBS, Education or Military

Are you really this stupid? You could do away with PBS and Planned Parenthood both and that wouldn't make up even 0.5% of the budget. If you're serious about wanting to get out of the deficit and the borrowing cycle, you're going to have to make cuts to some of the things you like that comprise large chunks of the budget (like the military), not just the stuff that you don't like (and don't amount to chickenfeed relative to the budget). Oh, and raise revenue, too.

[Rohirrim]

There's the pot calling the kettle black big words from a socialist like you. If LABF and others on this site want to carry Osama bin Laden head around on a stick then they should also take full responsibility for the lives that have been lost by the complete incompetence of the commander-in-chief.

Then I guess we should add in the 3,000 Americans who died on 9/11 because Bush and Cheney refused to listen to any of the warnings they were given?

[Irish Stout]

There's the pot calling the kettle black big words from a socialist like you. If LABF and others on this site want to carry Osama bin Laden head around on a stick then they should also take full responsibility for the lives that have been lost by the complete incompetence of the commander-in-chief.

I agree with you here, its the same as the QB in the NFL. Too much credit when they win and too much blame when they lose.

That being said, I don't think its exactly fair to put all attacks and casualties on the President. Some perhaps depending on the decisions he actually made. The President, whether Bush and the 12 terrorist attacks that occurred under his watch, or Obama and the Benghazi debacle, is only as responsible to the level of his assessment based on the information he is given and his reaction. I think the general public will never know exactly what level the knowledge these men actually have at any given time.

Also, for every one attack that is successful, how many times have Bush or Obama (or any prior president) made a decision that ultimately shut down another attack or multiple attacks? You just don't know.

The biggest thing I'm tired of in politics is this straight up bickering. Calling people libtard or rightards or nut jobs doesn't actually help us develop an honest discourse to building a better political and government arena. The lack of willingness to compromise, even on the neighbor to neighbor level, shows us that we're more concerned about our own unique positions than we are concerned about the greater welfare and development of the country as a whole.

So... for whatever its worth, I am willing to compromise and match cuts in spending to a certain level and we can start with Public Broadcasting (which I am an avid supporter of), if we can match it on something else like subsidies to oil companies. There, thats 0.024% of the budget, but we can all agree its a start. So the question is, why the hell isn't this actually being done and working in our government? We don't have to do it all at once in a big package, start with the little **** and work through it first.

[Fedaykin]

The biggest thing I'm tired of in politics is this straight up bickering. Calling people libtard or rightards or nut jobs doesn't actually help us develop an honest discourse to building a better political and government arena. The lack of willingness to compromise, even on the neighbor to neighbor level, shows us that we're more concerned about our own unique positions than we are concerned about the greater welfare and development of the country as a whole.

So... for whatever its worth, I am willing to compromise and match cuts in spending to a certain level and we can start with Public Broadcasting (which I am an avid supporter of), if we can match it on something else like subsidies to oil companies. There, thats 0.024% of the budget, but we can all agree its a start. So the question is, why the hell isn't this actually being done and working in our government? We don't have to do it all at once in a big package, start with the little **** and work through it first.

When you have the right absolutely refusing to accept _any_ revenue increases, you can't begin any real talk about any real solutions.

Any real solution is going to require working the problem from both a spending and a revenue angle. So far, only the left has given any indication that they are willing to do that. The ball is in the right's court to stop acting like petulant children.

When most of the congress critters and senators on the right have been bullied into a pledge to *never* raise taxes (Grover Norquist) you know you have a bunch of spineless politicians and a short sighted electorate.

[Rohirrim]

I agree with you here, its the same as the QB in the NFL. Too much credit when they win and too much blame when they lose.

That being said, I don't think its exactly fair to put all attacks and casualties on the President. Some perhaps depending on the decisions he actually made. The President, whether Bush and the 12 terrorist attacks that occurred under his watch, or Obama and the Benghazi debacle, is only as responsible to the level of his assessment based on the information he is given and his reaction. I think the general public will never know exactly what level the knowledge these men actually have at any given time.

Also, for every one attack that is successful, how many times have Bush or Obama (or any prior president) made a decision that ultimately shut down another attack or multiple attacks? You just don't know.

The biggest thing I'm tired of in politics is this straight up bickering. Calling people libtard or rightards or nut jobs doesn't actually help us develop an honest discourse to building a better political and government arena. The lack of willingness to compromise, even on the neighbor to neighbor level, shows us that we're more concerned about our own unique positions than we are concerned about the greater welfare and development of the country as a whole.

So... for whatever its worth, I am willing to compromise and match cuts in spending to a certain level and we can start with Public Broadcasting (which I am an avid supporter of), if we can match it on something else like subsidies to oil companies. There, thats 0.024% of the budget, but we can all agree its a start. So the question is, why the hell isn't this actually being done and working in our government? We don't have to do it all at once in a big package, start with the little **** and work through it first.

Because many on the Right have devolved into such a rabid ideological state that they no longer see their opponents as simply people with different political ideas. They see them as evil. As traitors. That's what happens when you mix religion and politics, as Atwater did in the 80s in order to get Reagan elected in the South. They let the monster out of the box.

These rabid Right wingers believe in a mythical, anti-historical world of a bygone America full of Christian values and sturdy, protestant ethics. They see their modern opponents though the lens of propaganda: An evil, conniving, communistic, atheistic cabal of traitors intent on the downfall of America and the death of freedom. Do you compromise with such traitorous vermin? Of course not. It's like they are running their own little Riefenstahl film through their heads, 24/7.

[Arkie]

PBS does a whole lot of good for this country.

It's worth every penny.

Not anymore. Every time the government spends money, it has to be so critical that it's worth borrowing the funds from China. I realize there are much bigger drains on the government than PBS. They are just using Big Bird to scare young moms or others not paying attention to political issues. Big Bird will be fine, with or without PBS. I'm more concerned about spending billions more than necessary on defense contracts, and the unsustainable entitlements.

[Fedaykin]

Not anymore. Every time the government spends money, it has to be so critical that it's worth borrowing the funds from China. I realize there are much bigger drains on the government than PBS. They are just using Big Bird to scare young moms or others not paying attention to political issues. Big Bird will be fine, with or without PBS. I'm more concerned about spending billions more than necessary on defense contracts, and the unsustainable entitlements.

Do you support the "no tax increases under any circumstances" pledge or the forces in play behind that stupidity? I you do, you're part of the problem.

[Requiem]

Department of Defense discretionary budget for 2013: 666 billion dollars. [Discretionary]

Yet, we need to get rid of PBS. Sounds legit.

[Pony Boy]

I agree with you here, its the same as the QB in the NFL. Too much credit when they win and too much blame when they lose.

That being said, I don't think its exactly fair to put all attacks and casualties on the President. Some perhaps depending on the decisions he actually made. The President, whether Bush and the 12 terrorist attacks that occurred under his watch, or Obama and the Benghazi debacle, is only as responsible to the level of his assessment based on the information he is given and his reaction. I think the general public will never know exactly what level the knowledge these men actually have at any given time.

Also, for every one attack that is successful, how many times have Bush or Obama (or any prior president) made a decision that ultimately shut down another attack or multiple attacks? You just don't know.

The biggest thing I'm tired of in politics is this straight up bickering. Calling people libtard or rightards or nut jobs doesn't actually help us develop an honest discourse to building a better political and government arena. The lack of willingness to compromise, even on the neighbor to neighbor level, shows us that we're more concerned about our own unique positions than we are concerned about the greater welfare and development of the country as a whole.

So... for whatever its worth, I am willing to compromise and match cuts in spending to a certain level and we can start with Public Broadcasting (which I am an avid supporter of), if we can match it on something else like subsidies to oil companies. There, thats 0.024% of the budget, but we can all agree its a start. So the question is, why the hell isn't this actually being done and working in our government? We don't have to do it all at once in a big package, start with the little **** and work through it first.

Yes but it's kind of like the sign in the zoo that says "don't poke the bear", you know it's not the right thing to do but you just can't help it. Stirring the pot on the WRP is just too much fun.

[Pony Boy]

Department of Defense discretionary budget for 2013: 666 billion dollars. [Discretionary]

Yet, we need to get rid of PBS. Sounds legit.

No one said you have to get rid of PBS or NPR but find sponsors or private funds to keep them afloat. Tell me why this is not possible?

[Pony Boy]

Because many on the Right have devolved into such a rabid ideological state that they no longer see their opponents as simply people with different political ideas. They see them as evil. As traitors. That's what happens when you mix religion and politics, as Atwater did in the 80s in order to get Reagan elected in the South. They let the monster out of the box.

These rabid Right wingers believe in a mythical, anti-historical world of a bygone America full of Christian values and sturdy, protestant ethics. They see their modern opponents though the lens of propaganda: An evil, conniving, communistic, atheistic cabal of traitors intent on the downfall of America and the death of freedom. Do you compromise with such traitorous vermin? Of course not. It's like they are running their own little Riefenstahl film through their heads, 24/7.

I'm not sure why you always try to tie these together, I haven't been inside a church except for a wedding or funeral in over 40 years. I have several right wing friends that have no religious ties what so ever. On the other hand, I know a lot of left wing liberals that are devout Christians or belong to other religious organizations.

[Fedaykin]

I'm not sure why you always try to tie these together, I haven't been inside a church except for a wedding or funeral in over 40 years. I have several right wing friends that have no religious ties what so ever. On the other hand, I know a lot of left wing liberals that are devout Christians or belong to other religious organizations.

You deny that the GOP base is heavily entwined with religion?

[Dexter]

Do you think Obama has room on that plate for the heads of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry? The way I look at it he is 3 for 3 right now.

If you're going to blame the deaths of those two people on one president, should we blame bush for the thousands killed on 9/11 and the thousands killed or injured in Iraq? Because that's the logic you're using right now.

[elsid13]

Corporation for Public Broadcasting gets $445 million per year in public funds but I guess the way you look at it it's ok to put that on a Chinese credit card and expect our children and grandchildren to pay for it all later. I see where you are coming from, they all watch Big Bird so they should pay the bill.

You do realize that largest holders of the US debt is the American public, and that Chinese holding of it has actually reduce over the last couple of years?

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

why not cut pbs and let them sink or swim like any other net work or a tax cut for anyone who gives pbs money why cant pbs survive off of donations or one or all of the networks donate some of their profit to keep pbs on the air. or any of the cable news networks .maybe he shoould take a big ass pay cut ------> current PBS (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_PBS_ceo_make_per_year#) C.E.O. Paula Kerger, 2008 $534,500, up from $424,209 at end of fiscal 2007. 2011 up to $632,233.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_PBS_ceo_make_per_year#ixzz28vZBh7Ka

[Irish Stout]

You do realize that largest holders of the US debt is the American public, and that Chinese holding of it has actually reduce over the last couple of years?

Interesting.

China has actually decreased its holdings of U.S. debt over the past year, dropping from $1.31 trillion in June 2011 to $1.16 trillion a year later, according to the Treasury Department. Japan holds nearly as much, at $1.12 trillion. Those countries are by far the biggest foreign holders, but dozens of other nations, including Brazil, Russia, Taiwan, Switzerland and the United Kingdom hold trillions more.

Inside the U.S., private investors hold nearly $1 trillion in federal debt, while mutual funds, insurance companies and state and local governments hold nearly double that amount.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/04/who-do-owe-most-that-16-trillion-to-hint-it-isnt-china/#ixzz28vZ9HLyO

Then this article is actually pretty interesting (and simplistic enough to digest quickly) as it explains why China (hint: borrowing from China is a low interest rate bargain that also keeps Chinese consumer goods cheap for us to import): http://useconomy.about.com/od/worldeconomy/p/What-Is-the-US-Debt-to-China.htm

[Irish Stout]

why not cut pbs and let them sink or swim like any other net work or a tax cut for anyone who gives pbs money why cant pbs survive off of donations or one or all of the networks donate some of their profit to keep pbs on the air. or any of the cable news networks .maybe he shoould take a big ass pay cut ------> current PBS (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_PBS_ceo_make_per_year#) C.E.O. Paula Kerger, 2008 $534,500, up from $424,209 at end of fiscal 2007. 2011 up to $632,233.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_PBS_ceo_make_per_year#ixzz28vZBh7Ka



Again - Fine, but its not be all end all. Why not cut ALL corporate subsidies altogether? We'll make a dent closer to the size of 4% of the budget, as opposed to 1/400th of that amount which is PBS.

Why pick on just PBS?

[Rohirrim]

Not anymore. Every time the government spends money, it has to be so critical that it's worth borrowing the funds from China. I realize there are much bigger drains on the government than PBS. They are just using Big Bird to scare young moms or others not paying attention to political issues. Big Bird will be fine, with or without PBS. I'm more concerned about spending billions more than necessary on defense contracts, and the unsustainable entitlements.

Cut a third from the military budget, close foreign bases, end the debacle in Afghanistan now, restore the progressive tax system to it's pre-Reagan days, start a national, single-payer health care system, and we are back to surpluses in no time. ;D

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

Again - Fine, but its not be all end all. Why not cut ALL corporate subsidies altogether? We'll make a dent closer to the size of 4% of the budget, as opposed to 1/400th of that amount which is PBS.

Why pick on just PBS?

one is being paid by the government the other is getting breaks on their taxes i dont know what sort of tax breaks they are getting but it should involve hiring qualified people to work for them.
also i say cut some desk jobs that the higher ups in the military get ya know the big shot generals who well just sit behind a desk if there is any .
eliminate the general surgeon position .
cut most of the dept of agriculture jobs salaries .
have pbs cut or eliminated since they are what getting millions of bucks from merchandising why not do it like college sports or high school seseme street can fund those other programs that pbs show that 80% of the us population dont watch

[Garcia Bronco]

What else are we putting on that Chinese credit card? A bloated military? Subsidies to oil companies? Compared with what goes to PBS, it's not even worth talking about.

Obviously everything as broke as we are. It's all worth talking about and everything should be on the table.

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

Cut a third from the military budget, close foreign bases, end the debacle in Afghanistan now, restore the progressive tax system to it's pre-Reagan days, start a national, single-payer health care system, and we are back to surpluses in no time. ;D

how about foreign aid, does the UN pay any taxes or rent or anything for having a big building sitting there.
the us gov should ask us for ideals seems like some of us got some good ideals we do need the military for defense but i bet there is some people who are doing nothing in the armed forces just sitting behind a desk. and lets have a flat tax like maybe 10% for everyone thats making a decent amount of $$ like the lowest amount you have to pay for taxes eliminate that and everyone else pay 10%

[Pony Boy]

You deny that the GOP base is heavily entwined with religion?

I think you will find that both parties are heavily entwined with religion but I think you are trying to lump all people with religious beliefs into the Christian Right movement. So if you are saying the republican base is heavily entwined with the Christian Right movement you are wrong. Both Carter and Clinton had a strong religious base, did you have a problem with that?

[Fedaykin]

Obviously everything as broke as we are. It's all worth talking about and everything should be on the table.

Everything should be considered, but when you think PBS is worth an entire thread, or a direct mention in a presidential debate, you're heading into crazy town.

If you don't address the big ticket items (military/industrial, large social programs), there's no point in looking at the small ticket items. If this were debated in the house, the amount of money spent on the debate itself would dwarf the potential cuts.

[DenverBrit]

I think you will find that both parties are heavily entwined with religion but I think you are trying to lump all people with religious beliefs into the Christian Right movement. So if you are saying the republican base is heavily entwined with the Christian Right movement you are wrong. Both Carter and Clinton had a strong religious base, did you have a problem with that?

It has been for some time and in the process, has warped Conservative values.

GOP insider: Religion destroyed my party
A veteran Republican says the religious right has taken over, and turned his party into anti-intellectual nuts

Religious cranks ceased to be a minor public nuisance in this country beginning in the 1970s and grew into a major element of the Republican rank and file. Pat Robertson’s strong showing in the 1988 Iowa presidential caucus signaled the gradual merger of politics and religion in the party. Unfortunately, at the time I mostly underestimated the implications of what I was seeing. It did strike me as oddly humorous that a fundamentalist staff member in my congressional office was going to take time off to convert the heathen in Greece, a country that had been overwhelmingly Christian for almost two thousand years.
http://www.salon.com/2012/08/05/republicans_slouching_toward_theocracy/

[Pony Boy]

It has been for some time and in the process, has warped Conservative values.

GOP insider: Religion destroyed my party
A veteran Republican says the religious right has taken over, and turned his party into anti-intellectual nuts


http://www.salon.com/2012/08/05/republicans_slouching_toward_theocracy/

It depends on what you call heavily entwined, accurate statistics are hard to find. Wikipedia said about 68% to 78% of the white evangelical vote went to Bush and that would represent about 23% of the total vote. I don't consider 23% as heavily entwined. Entwined yes but not heavily entwined.

[DenverBrit]

It depends on what you call heavily entwined, accurate statistics are hard to find. Wikipedia said about 68% to 78% of the white evangelical vote went to Bush and that would represent about 23% of the total vote. I don't consider 23% as heavily entwined. Entwined yes but not heavily entwined.

To be honest, I can't quantify how many, but Santorum does seem to represent many in the GOP when it comes to Governmental social interference. Something no true conservative would consider acceptable.

Lofgren does a nice job of time-lining the Fundamentalist shift, in agreement with Goldwater's comments.

[Pony Boy]

To be honest, I can't quantify how many, but Santorum does seem to represent many in the GOP when it comes to Governmental social interference. Something no true conservative would consider acceptable.

Lofgren does a nice job of time-lining the Fundamentalist shift, in agreement with Goldwater's comments.

I would agree with Santorum but add the importance of "States Right's" most conservatives I know want the Federal government off their backs and out of their daily lives. The states were united under one flag for protection and to provide a common currency for ease of interaction between them. This notion of a huge federal government heavy with programs, buyouts, bailouts, subsidies and entitlement programs was never the intention of the founding fathers.

[DenverBrit]

I would agree with Santorum but add the importance of "States Right's" most conservatives I know want the Federal government off their backs and out of their daily lives. The states were united under one flag for protection and to provide a common currency for ease of interaction between them. This notion of a huge federal government heavy with programs, buyouts, bailouts, subsidies and entitlement programs was never the intention of the founding fathers.

Likewise. Neither party fits that description right now.

The best we can hope for is bi partisan efforts after the election, but I fear it will be another 4 years of partisan squabbling; no matter who gets elected.

[Rohirrim]

The only way to fix that is get rid of special interests. Money isn't free speech. Corporations aren't people.

[DenverBrit]

The only way to fix that is get rid of special interests. Money isn't free speech. Corporations aren't people.

Campaign finance reform would be top of my list, along with election reform.

Not sure how that will ever happen. Uhh

[Arkie]

Cut a third from the military budget, close foreign bases, end the debacle in Afghanistan now, restore the progressive tax system to it's pre-Reagan days, start a national, single-payer health care system, and we are back to surpluses in no time. ;D



Surpluses are rare in the era of big government. ;) The 81 year scorecard is

deficits: 69
surpluses: 12

and realistically, it's at least 80 to 12 with the projected future deficits.

[Jetmeck]

Sesame Workshop has a liquid cushion of over $130-million in cash and securities

I think your missing the point, I know it's about PBS and you know it's about PBS but Obama is the one claming that Big Bird will be an endangered species if Romney has his way.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KJmVKU2p_nw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



He was missing the point, you have got to be kidding.

How stupid do you have to be post this dribble. ???

[spdirty]

http://www.ijreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/032.jpeg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

^

We can always count on you to get things bass-ackwards.

Your candidate thinks he can balance the budget by cutting funding to a program that represents something like 0.01% of the budget.

[Arkie]

^

We can always count on you to get things bass-ackwards.

Your candidate thinks he can balance the budget by cutting funding to a program that represents something like 0.01% of the budget.

His actual quote was First of all, I will eliminate all programs based on this test, if they don’t pass it – Is the program so critical it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it. And if not, I’ll get rid of it. I’m sorry Jim, I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I’m going to stop other things. I like PBS. I love Big Bird. I actually like you, too. But I’m not going to—I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it. That’s No. 1.

Is this the quote that misled you, or are you just trying to mislead others?

[BroncoInferno]

His actual quote was

Is this the quote that misled you, or are you just trying to mislead others?

Um, not sure why you think posting that quote helps? Romney talks a big game about how it's a moral imperative to not spend more than we take in, but when asked for specifics the best he can come up with is PBS, which is chickenfeed relative to the budget.

[Rohirrim]

His actual quote was

Is this the quote that misled you, or are you just trying to mislead others?

I'm sure he'll find lots of rightie pals on Capitol Hill to help him defund PBS, and the arts, and health, and the safety net, and education, and every other "people" program that they despise. When he tries to apply that same criteria to the bloated defense budget or corporate welfare, they'll laugh him right out of their offices.

[Pony Boy]

Um, not sure why you think posting that quote helps? Romney talks a big game about how it's a moral imperative to not spend more than we take in, but when asked for specifics the best he can come up with is PBS, which is chickenfeed relative to the budget.

Because LABF's quote stated Romney said he could balance the budget by cutting only one program ....... so it was Arkie’s intention to post the entire quote to make it clear to buffoons like LABF.

Obviously Arkie doesn’t know LABF only speaks in cartoons ……

[BroncoInferno]

Because LABF's quote stated Romney said he could balance the budget by cutting only one program…

Well, since PBS is the only program Romney will specifically name, it's easy to draw that conclusion.

[Pony Boy]

Well, since PBS is the only program Romney will specifically name, it's easy to draw that conclusion.

Romney Quote:

"I will eliminate all programs based on this test, if they don’t pass it – Is the program so critical it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it. And if not, I’ll get rid of it".

[BroncoInferno]

Romney Quote:

"I will eliminate all programs based on this test, if they don’t pass it – Is the program so critical it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it. And if not, I’ll get rid of it".

Do you know what the word "specific" means? That's quite a vague declaration, because we don't know what Romney's definition is of a "critical" program. It would help if he would name more than one piddling agency (PBS represents a whopping ~ 0.1% of the budget).

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Because LABF's quote stated Romney said he could balance the budget by cutting only one program ....... so it was Arkie’s intention to post the entire quote to make it clear to buffoons like LABF.

Obviously Arkie doesn’t know LABF only speaks in cartoons ……

What happens when right-wing idiots like Pony Boy have their way...

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/576474_425112414214510_1841454199_n.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Because LABF's quote stated Romney said he could balance the budget by cutting only one program ....... so it was Arkie’s intention to post the entire quote to make it clear to buffoons like LABF.

Obviously Arkie doesn’t know LABF only speaks in cartoons ……

Cartoons are about all your diminutive brain can process.

You should be thanking me for trying to include you in the conversation. :welcome:

[Fedaykin]

Um, not sure why you think posting that quote helps? Romney talks a big game about how it's a moral imperative to not spend more than we take in, but when asked for specifics the best he can come up with is PBS, which is chickenfeed relative to the budget.

This say sit all about the complete lack of a real functioning plan Romney has. In a national debate, perhaps the most important stage of all the presidential campaign events, and the best plan Romney can articulate in detail is to kill PBS.

Doesn't matter one damn bit that he's talks in vague terms about "cutting spending". If he can't, on that stage, talk about even *one* significant change he'd make, he either a.) has no plan or b.) knows his real plan will not get him elected.