51–60 of 121 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not that I'm pro-cut, but to a budget hawk any spending is too much spending regardless of matched contribution. Edit: Keep on downvoting, it's not going to change the opposition's persepctive.
That's a straw man of a budget hawk. Real budget hawks are more reasonable.
It always seemed odd that PBS is such an frequent target of Republicans while the Voice of America seems fly under the radar.
VOA is fully-taxpayer funded to the tune of $260M/yr.
a) It easily could be funded voluntarily
b) If it is so important (as the article argues), why is it such a small portion of the budget?
How come PBS cannot fund itself? And make profit and revenue? Just curious.
In my opinion, this will ruin the editorial standards of the PBS by eventually favoring monetary interests to keep itself alive. One of the benefits of an organization with guaranteed funding is that it doesn't need to change its activities to pander for money, and can focus on its actual published mission.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a straw man of a budget hawk. Real budget hawks are more reasonable.
Bury your head in the sand, man. We're not looking at reasonable folks. It's just one side trying to piss on the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bury your head in the sand, man. We're not looking at reasonable folks. It's just one side trying to piss on the other.
Thank you Captain Obvious. Can you also shed light on some deep mysteries like the colour of the sky, if water is wet, and where bears poop?
How come PBS cannot fund itself? And make profit and revenue? Just curious.
It probably could fund itself and make a profit. But the whole point is that the country is choosing to invest in providing quality media content in the form of high quality detailed reporting and educational content because it's critical for the success of our nation. I think even the most partisan American would have a hard time looking at commercial media and declaring it a resounding success - educational channel…
Lawmakers are spending other people's money
> critical for the success of our nation
That's a stretch
Interesting. It always seemed odd that PBS is such an frequent target of Republicans while the Voice of America seems fly under the radar. VOA is fully-taxpayer funded to the tune of $260M/yr.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not that I'm pro-cut, but to a budget hawk any spending is too much spending regardless of matched contribution. Edit: Keep on downvoting, it's not going to change the opposition's persepctive.
That's a straw man of a budget hawk. Real budget hawks are more reasonable.
Is this an ironic no-true-scotsman?