.. in his new budget of between $114 million to $145 million from the current $460 million budget? This would severely impact PBS and drastically reduce the childrens programs.
2007-02-08 12:55:28 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Yeah, that's messed up.
PBS is a good TV program, for sure. And the children's programs are high rate. I mean, Mr. Rogers, Sesame Street, etc.
In my opinion, definitely not a smart move. Not one at all.
2007-02-08 13:03:24 · answer #1 · answered by dansefanatik 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
To receive federal funds, PBS is supposed to report a balanced view of world events and politics. Sadly, they have decided to broadcast with a decidedly liberal bias. This has and should restrict their support from the federal budget. The ball is in their court; if they return to balanced broadcasting, I am sure there will be an opening of the federal wallet. Or, they can continue as they are, and SUCK WIND.
2016-05-23 23:18:19 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You ever watch PBS? They have provocative, insightful programming and actually do investigative journalism
Whereas network news broadcasts what people watch, and is supported by ads. That way they dont have the justification to do research, because Americans are uncomfortable with the truth (do a quick search around yahoo answers on the subject of global warming to test my theory.
2007-02-08 13:00:30 · answer #3 · answered by polk2525 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Remember what his priorities have been - this is no surprise. He wants to build a wall/fence on the Mexican/USA border, send more troops to IRAQ, give tax breaks to corporations - all these cost money and higher taxes are unpopular. His only options are to cut funding from other places - The impact is barely considered. NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND indeed. What hypocrisy!!!!!
2007-02-08 13:02:35 · answer #4 · answered by goddess 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Part of the persidents plan for sending more money into Iraq, is to cut domestic spending, which means anything and everything that receives federal funding.
2007-02-08 15:18:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It think it should sold to a private owner. Tax money should not have to pay for entertainment. Although I did watch alot of Big Bird and Mr. Rogers when I was young. I think that their popularity is way too big that the new station would not choose to drop them. What more important: Using force to get your PBS or letting people keep their money to do with it as they choose.
2007-02-08 13:00:47 · answer #6 · answered by ? 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because they have Liberal programing like the News Hour With Jim Leher who is really the only one who questions Bush's athority and intelligance.
2007-02-08 12:58:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
I know. He wants to funnel money to the armed forces, at the expense of just about everything else in America.
ONE reason PBS (and NPR) is targeted is probably that they've always been critical of him anyway. So, in his mind, why support something that's raising dissent toward him?
2007-02-08 13:00:22 · answer #8 · answered by trufflestomper 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Media is not giving him favorable news and it is the reason for the cut in the funding.
2007-02-08 15:06:47 · answer #9 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
any country involved in military action has to heavily paid the expenses..Because forces is one department of any country which very very very easily granted his requirments from the govt.( and simply they need money for action) so, the impact of this funding has to go somewhr else in segment of budget. and effact of this rotation of money can u c slowly but surely afterwords, which comes in not good shape for the common ppl. ( in todays u.s. , ppl. r paying for afghan mission which is understandable but for iraq case its like u r stuck on snow highway neither reach to destination nor can go back to home!!!)
HOPE thiw will clear the picture my friend.
2007-02-08 13:07:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋