Of all the important issues facing this country in this election and some of you are hung up on Big Bird. God help this country!

Do you really think that without federal funding Sesame Street will go away? Charlie Rose, maybe. History Detectives, maybe. Sesame Street...no way. Way way way too much licensing money. There are multiple PBS channels now, maybe there will be only one if they take away the 15% of their funding that comes from the federal govt, but Sesame Street is in zero danger.

The federal government (i.e., those Americans who pay federal income taxes) should not fund everything. Specifically, we should not fund an organization as partisan as PBS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think funding internet access more broadly would probably educate people more than a TV network.

I don't. Have you seen the crap that's on the Internet?

Besides, it's not an either-or proposition.

Right...they can learn a whole lot from reading DCUM.

Anonymous wrote:Hey dumbos. I think Sesame Street will be fine. I am sure some network will pick it up and it will survive on all the ons of products sold with its characters. I think Downton Abbey will make it too. If there are people watching, a network or cable channel will pick it up.

AGree.

Hey dumbos. I think Sesame Street will be fine. I am sure some network will pick it up and it will survive on all the ons of products sold with its characters. I think Downton Abbey will make it too. If there are people watching, a network or cable channel will pick it up.

Anonymous wrote:I think funding internet access more broadly would probably educate people more than a TV network.

I don't. Have you seen the crap that's on the Internet?

Besides, it's not an either-or proposition.

I think funding internet access more broadly would probably educate people more than a TV network.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You'll certainly get a tax deduction for your future charitable contribution to PBS.

Not with Romney's tax plan, you won't. He'd limit itemized deductions to $17,000, leaving no room for people with a mortgage in these parts to write off their charitable contributions.

Source?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/03/romney-suggests-17000-cap-on-tax-deductions/

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/10/03/health-care-not-part-of-romneys-17000-tax-plan/


http://www.forbes.com/sites/leonardburman/2012/10/03/quick-comments-on-gov-romneys-proposal-for-17000-cap-on-deductions/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You'll certainly get a tax deduction for your future charitable contribution to PBS.

Not with Romney's tax plan, you won't. He'd limit itemized deductions to $17,000, leaving no room for people with a mortgage in these parts to write off their charitable contributions.

Source?

Anonymous wrote:Why do you people need TV at all? Read your kids a book. Turn off the TV and go for a walk. Get it all out of your system.

Like it or not, TV is an important part of our popular culture. Pretending otherwise is neither erudite nor virtuous.

Why do you people need TV at all? Read your kids a book. Turn off the TV and go for a walk. Get it all out of your system.

Agree PP! The people who need public television the most may not be in the position to donate and as shown, we can't rely on people to just donate all the time.

Anonymous wrote:Why does the federal government have to pay for tv programming? If people like it they can donate. Unreal.

Is this a serious question?

Research the history of TV. It hasn't always been fiber optics and satellite and 57 channels with nothing on.

The air waves are a public good. Ensuring they were used that way (education, news) in the beginning was the perogative of government. I'd argue that government funding now more than ever is needed to counterbalance the utter crap that is broadcast. If I have to tolerate Jersey Shore on the public spectrum, by golly the government can underwrite Sesame Street.

Why does the federal government have to pay for tv programming? If people like it they can donate. Unreal.