Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

HE’S RICHER THAN ROMNEY! - - AND a democrat, apparently.

“In reality, of course, PBS affiliates have become increasingly corporatized. As GOP Sen. Jim DeMint noted last year, franchises like Sesame Street "are multimillion-dollar enterprises capable of thriving in the private market. According to the 990 tax form all nonprofits are required to file, Sesame Workshop President and CEO Gary Knell received $956,513 -- nearly a million dollars -- in compensation in 2008. And, from 2003 to 2006, 'Sesame Street' made more than $211 million from toy and consumer product sales."
Sesame Street has also become increasingly politicized. Under the Obama administration, Elmo has lobbied for the FCC's national broadband plan and the first lady's Big Nanny nutrition bill. Investigative journalist James O'Keefe caught former NPR exec Ron Schiller on tape trashing the Tea Party as "racist" and "Islamophobic." And the official PBS Twitter account sent a special shout-out to radical leftist group Move On last year for leading the government media rescue charge. Moreover, as I've previously reported, NPR and PBS have no problem raising money from corporations and left-wing philanthropists, including billionaire George Soros, whose Open Society Institute gave $1.8 million to pay for at least 100 journalists at NPR member radio stations in all 50 states over the next three years.”

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2012/1 ... bscriber=1

I've always said Ken Burns specials could be their own channel. And the kids shows would fit fine on toddler channels.

The only things that would be scrapped are the speciality shows that only a small segment of the population would give a crap, like that special on Circuit City, and it's history, including it's down fall.

ONLY on PBS could they uphold a FAILED company!

No doubt. The best part of the debate was Romney's test on what to cut. If it's not worth borrowing money from China, it's got to go. I think PBS falls into that category. The bulk of their revenue comes from private donations and other sources so it's time to cut the government cord.

I love PBS and I think there are a lot of opportunities to have public/private relationships get something off the ground (Internet, our developing private space program) and it's just time to move PBS in that direction too.

I have a liberal friend who was irate that "Romney had the nerve to tell the moderator he was going to cut funding to PBS ... to his face!"

It was, after all, just an example of Romney's litmus test on the type of funding to cut if he's elected, but my point to my friend was who watches PBS anymore?? I sure did back in the 70's and early 80's, but with the advent of satellite TV and cable, who watches PBS anymore?? Nobody. I have several nieces and nephews who grew up on Blues Clues, Dora the Explorer, etc, and they have no clue who Big Bird is. I say let Sesame Street and PBS fend for themselves. Give Oscar the Grouch something to really bitch about. They don't need the subsidies anyway.

We need to cut spending. Some understand that, others don't...

What bugged me was attacking the PBS subsidy and then defending the oil/gas one. Both are way past their prime and are examples of the dreaded "redistribution".

Neither one is in need of taxpayer support.

The government should not be involved in the media anyway. If the government helps subsidize a TV network and a nationwide radio network, those networks are no longer free to broadcast with any objectivity. Since the government has a financial stake in the network, it has a say in its programming. That in itself may be a 1st amendment violation and certainly gives the government a path toward "State run media".

We need to cut the budget. Government should have a limited role in regulating broadcasting, however not in establishing its content. The choice is easy. PBS should not be funded by the government, nor should they accept such funding. PBS should be allowed to compete freely with other networks for ratings and fund itself independently like its fellow networks.

What gas/oil subsidy? Be specific.

Surely he means that corn/ethanol thing...

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Yeah, there is a lot of confusion about oil subsidies. Just because you say it enough times does not make it true. I can see why people think oil companies get special subsidies because the politicians are saying it and by golly they SHOULD have all of the information right? Nah, they're just people too.

Here are a few of the items which are being incorrectly identified as “subsidies” inside the beltway:

Intangible Drilling Costs – Companies which engage purely in energy exploration and discovery can recover their costs related to exploration at tax time at a rate of 100%. This lessens the burden on energy providers for the number of “dry holes” which may be found in the process. Integrated companies (i.e. “big oil”) can recover these exploration costs at 70%. Not a subsidy.

Domestic Manufacturer’s Deduction (Section 199) – A deduction (not a credit) equal to 9% of income earned from manufacturing, producing, growing or extracting in the United States, is available to every single taxpayer who qualifies in the U.S. The oil and gas industry, and only the oil and gas industry, is limited to a 6% deduction.

Percentage Depletion – The percentage depletion deduction is a cost recovery method that allows taxpayers to recover their lease investment in a mineral interest through a percentage of gross income from a well. This depletion method is not available to companies that produce oil as well as refine and market it (i.e. “Big Oil”.) This is available to all extractive industries (gold, iron, clay, etc) in the US and is in no way unique to the oil and gas industry.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/03/o ... clarified/

We don't want to KILL Big Bird....... we just want to get him off welfare.