Anti-Romney Ad Shutdown by Sesame Stree

Ziggy Stardust said:
(according to those who "don't see the point in using taxpayer funds to support programs that by rights can or should support themselves", not sure what your take on it is)
Click to expand...
Logically, how this works is you tell me why taxpayers should spend money on it rather than vice versa. I don't believe in spending government funds just cuz after all there actually has to be a reason to justify the expense.
 
Skwink said:
Contrary to what you might think, not all Republicans are socially conservative.
Click to expand...

Then they'd be more than happy to have gays/Buddhists/agnostics/etc trampled underfoot for a tax cut. That's somehow actually worse than being legitimately socially conservative.

EDIT: Look, I've had this argument on here before at least twice. I still find it sort of slimy to conspire with people like Santorum for the sake of an economic agenda.
 
DinoDoc said:
Logically, how this works is you tell me why taxpayers should spend money on it rather than vice versa. I don't believe in spending government funds just cuz after all there actually has to be a reason to justify the expense.
Click to expand...
If the only argument you accept for something to be worth funding is that it would be able to make the money on its own the whole discussion becomes self-defeating.
 
DinoDoc said:
Or maybe they simply don't see the point in using taxpayer funds to support programs that by rights can or should support themselves?
Click to expand...
You mean like schools, public libraries, the arts, basic science research, drug, food, and pollution inspectors, etc?

Not everything is a "profit center".
 
No one has made an argument justifying the expense. It's such a simple question for a simple mind such as myself. Explain to me the rationale for a taxpayer subsidy of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
 
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is one of the most cost effective means of perusing children's and adult on going education. To cut it would require either a lowering of education standards or an increase of cost in other areas.
 
ParkCungHee said:
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is one of the most cost effective means of perusing children's and adult on going education. To cut it would require either a lowering of education standards or an increase of cost in other areas.
Click to expand...
Sesame Workshop exists with or without the CPB. I would however be interested in seeing the evidence you have for the cost effective claims wrt adult education.
 
Sesame Workshop exists with or without the CPB.
Click to expand...
Sesame Street is only one such program. PBS offers a variety of children's educational programming after school, midday and Saturday mornings.

I would however be interested in seeing the evidence you have for the cost effective claims wrt adult education.
Click to expand...
Well, look at the alternatives to the maintenance of a few broadcasting networks scattered about the country to convey the same information:

Public Libraries would need copies of the materials physically maintained in a variety of locations every few miles across the whole country, with the attendant costs of real estate, employees, etc.

Actual classes would require funding paid professionals again all across the country.

So it seems fairly self-evident to me that Television is one of the more cost-effective methods for making public education available.
 
PBS has inspired countless of people with their science programming, to go into fields of engineering, computer science, biology, chemistry, and so on.

PBS helps America compete in all these fields by inspiring bright young minds.

Would Baby Boo Boo or Jersey shore do that? No, they inspire idiots.
 
I'm a simple man in need of education. When someone makes a claim that a public expense is the most cost effective means of perusing children's and adult on going education, I assume they have facts rather than assertions to back it up. Should that not be the case? I would be interested in seeing the facts as it would be a valid response to the question I asked.
 
DinoDoc said:
Logically, how this works is you tell me why taxpayers should spend money on it rather than vice versa.
Click to expand...
Conversationally though, people are allowed to ask questions now and again. Is me enquiring about the nature of your motivations without revealing my own that illogical? Spock would raise an eyebrow at that one.
I don't believe in spending government funds just cuz after all there actually has to be a reason to justify the expense.
Click to expand...
This is what I found odd. The reason to justify the expense is that it should be compensated by profit or private donations, or it has no right to exist. There seems to be a great uproar every time something as valuable as money gets wasted on nonsense like information. Strikes me as odd, that's all.

I'll not prod further into what fuels that odd sentiment. I lost interest 3 sentences ago.
 
DinoDoc said:
I'm a simple man in need of education. When someone makes a claim that a public expense is the most cost effective means of perusing children's and adult on going education, I assume they have facts rather than assertions to back it up. Should that not be the case? I would be interested in seeing the facts as it would be a valid response to the question I asked.
Click to expand...
You seem to be asserting the contrary.
I would like to see your facts to back up your case that there are more cost effective methods of education.
 
I actually have no idea. It was part of the reason I was interested in your response. If the facts bore out your response, it would have been a valid response to my query.
 
From a federal or state perspective? You'd get a different answer depending on which level of government you chose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom