Of All The Problems Facing USA, Mitt Romney's Biggest Problem Is With Big Bird

[sfc_oliver]

I well understand satire, and your statement was still stupid.

As for the good congressman, well 2 out of three isn't bad.

You see you post so much trivial mish mush that mostly I don't read 95% of it as I find it is that much a waste of time.

As we can see from my previous posts I can agree with the congressman on a few of his points. I would disagree that the active Military be drawn down into a reserve/guard status.........

And of course he is missing the fraud waste and abuse.......

When do you think we have borrowed enough money?

[irishbobcat]

Sarge, Sarge, Sarge....

First off, my statement "why can't the defense department begin to accept advertisements" was a Satirical statement.

It was made to poke fun at the notion that you and all conservatives always defend cutting any government social program
by stating that such government social programs need funded by private citizens and private companies...and not by taxpayers.
So, when you suggest certain government social programs needed to be funded by the private sector, I expanded on your beliefs
and extended that same thought process to the military.

That is called satire, Sarge....and if you still don't grasp the context, please feel free to google the word "satire" and educate yourself....


Second, I find it funny that you don't care what a Republican Congressman, who is a combat veteran with 21 years of military service, has to say about the
need to cut military spending.

You state that because you spent 22 years wearing the uniform you seem to have more knowledge of wasteful spending.....so because you have one more year of experience makes you more of an expert than the congressman? Are you saying the congressman has never seen wasteful military spending, and you alone are the only military man to see wasteful spending?

And are you also suggesting that a Congressman who works on the hill and spends countless more hours than you do on ways to fix the federal budget
and military spending is less knowledgeable on these subjects than a retired sargent from Lowellville? 

Boy Sarge, I always thought you conservatives were full of yourselfs....but you do take the cake....

And, by the way, I do thank a Vet...

Cut social programs? Sure, but you be careful what you wish for....

[sfc_oliver]

I did not say anyone was stupid, Dennis you really do need a reading comprehension course.

I said the statement "Why can't the defense department begin to accept advertisements?" was stupid, and it is still stupid.

Yes Rick there is little doubt we can cut some military spending. Which part would you like to cut? They gutted the military personnel at the end of the cold war, and again right after Desert Storm. The military is smaller now than it was when I retired in 93.

Waste, abuse, and fraud is where to go. Look at the programs that the military really doesn't need but that certain congressmen and senators protect.  Look at closing some more bases around the world. (Germany has less than 40% of the bases and troops they had in 1991 last time I was there). Move those troops to the states and patrol our borders, of course that will mean doing away with or changing Posse comitatus.

You see Dennis you still have your blinders on. You always paint with a broad brush when you need details. I don't care what some Republican Congressman says. He didn't spend 22 years wearing the uniform and seeing the useless things I saw and dealt with.

Cut the military? Sure, but be careful what you wish for..... And by the way, Thank a Vet.

[Rick Rowlands]

Dennis,

I can't believe that I am saying this, but I do believe that military spending can be cut.  We are stretched way too thin and we were never meant to be the world's police force. 

[irishbobcat]

Sorry, Sarge, cutting military spending can and must occur within the federal budget. Such spending cuts
can occur without harming the defense of this country.

I always love the way Sarge and the conservatives always attack people who suggest cutting military spending as "stupid."

Funny thing though, a Republican Congressman recently wrote an opinion piece in the Denver Post that stated we can indeed
cut military spending:

Coffman: How to cut the defense budget  Posted: 09/04/2011 01:00:00 AM MDT
Updated: 09/06/2011 09:47:10 AM MDT By U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman 
    Congress is facing extraordinary pressures to reduce the deficit, and there is not an area of government spending that should be immune from budget cuts, including the Department of Defense. I am confident we can make reductions to the defense budget that will not compromise our national security by doing three things: shifting from a counterinsurgency to a counterterrorism strategy; closing overseas military bases; and transferring active-duty units into an expanded National Guard and Reserve.
• Shift in strategy: In early 2004, Osama bin Laden said one of his goals was to "bleed America to the point of bankruptcy." In some ways, our strategy of counterinsurgency has played into his hands. Our current doctrine is a high-cost nation-building strategy that has worn out our military. Our focus must shift to counter- terrorism, where threats are removed as they emerge, using special operations forces working in concert with indigenous elements to defeat the asymmetric capabilities posed by both insurgencies and terrorism.
We are now down to 40,000 troops in Iraq and, by the end of the year, all U.S. military forces will be completely withdrawn from the country. During the surge in Iraq in 2007 and 2008, there were up to 170,000 troops there. The cost in 2011 alone is estimated at $49.3 billion, down from a peak of $142.1 billion in fiscal year 2008 at the height of the surge.
In Afghanistan, President Obama has proposed a phased withdrawal plan that will shift operational control to Afghan security forces by 2014. We currently have about 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, at a projected cost of $118.6 billion for this fiscal year.
Somalia and Yemen are the templates for future operations. In both nations, we employ a counterterrorism strategy that leverages a very light footprint of specialized personnel and equipment to carry out surgical strike operations against al-Qaeda's leadership. Our efforts in Yemen and Somalia have yielded promising gains against al-Qaeda without the large- scale conventional deployments that have defined our counterinsurgency/ nation-building missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• Closing military bases: The Cold War ended in 1989, yet we still have 79,000 troops stationed in Europe with 45,000 of them in Germany alone. The total cost of our military presence in Europe is projected to be $8.6 billion for this fiscal year. Only four of our 28 NATO allies are fulfilling their requirement under the NATO charter to spend at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense because they are relying far too heavily on the United States to provide it for them.
We need to remain a member of NATO but should close our military bases in Europe.
We still have 28,000 U.S. military personnel assigned to bases in South Korea, yet we have not had U.S. troops stationed along the demilitarized zone that separates North Korea from South Korea since a new security agreement was reached in 2003. The projected cost of our military presence in South Korea for this fiscal year is $3.35 billion, with an additional $13 billion in proposed base construction costs scheduled over the next 10 years.
We need to move in the opposite direction by canceling the new construction and instead systematically start reducing our troop presence. To demonstrate our ongoing support for stability on the peninsula, we can participate in regularly scheduled joint military exercises with the South Korean military instead of maintaining large permanent garrisons. As we close our bases in South Korea, we could pre- position heavy weapons and equipment that will enable our forces to quickly mobilize in the event of escalating tensions with North Korea.
• Expanding the National Guard and Reserves:
Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates repeatedly warned Congress that if the trajectory of personnel costs continues to rise, it will crowd out the acquisition budget for weapons and equipment, ultimately running the risk of turning our military into a hollow force. Gates likened this situation to our European NATO allies who have the personnel but lack the necessary weapons and modern equipment to be an effective fighting force.
The best way to reduce personnel cost is to expand the size of the National Guard and Reserves in exchange for commensurate, conditions-based reductions in our active- duty components in order to achieve a significant cost savings.
For example, the average cost of an active-duty U.S. Army soldier is $130,000 per year, not including retirement pay and retiree health care benefits. That same soldier costs $43,000 in the National Guard and $37,000 in the Reserves. Including the difference in Reserve retiree health care benefits and pay versus active-duty retirees, the savings are even greater. The average Reserve component retiree cost is less than 50 percent of an average active-duty retiree.
The United States currently maintains an active-duty force structure of 1.42 million with 740,000 in the National Guard and Reserve components. We need to critically examine our entire force structure to see what active-duty units might be more suited for the National Guard and Army Reserve given the evolving nature of the threats to our national security and the pressures to reduce spending.
Congress has a constitutional obligation "to provide for the common defense." It also has a responsibility to the taxpayers to provide for it in the most cost-effective manner possible.
U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman represents the 6th Congressional District. He is a combat veteran with a combined 21 years of military service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   How about that, Sarge, a Republican and combat veteran who believes we can cut miltary spending....   So Sarge, is he stupid, or are you?

[Towntalk]

First of all, PBS does have corporate sponsors for their programs, and at the opening of each show, they do a mini audio commercial.

In commercial broadcasting there are three types of programs:

[1] Sponsored programs – 90% of the shows fall into this category
[2] Public Service programs – Programs in the public interest – required by the FCC.
[3] Sustaining – Non commercial programs such as church services. No commercials

In the case of programs run on 45/49 in most cases there is a lead sponsor who is given a 10 to 20 second spot at the opening and closing of the show  that is genaric in nature. The others just get a mention. This is most noticeable on PBS cooking shows and how-to shows.

In the case of the cooking shows the host often does a commercial for his or her latest cookbook, in the case of sowing shows such as Sowing with Nancy, she does a commercial for her business, and in the case of art shows the host does a commercial for art supplies such as with Bob Ross.

[sfc_oliver]

And while I'm at it, why can't we cut defense spending? Why can't the defense department begin to accept advertisements?

Do I really need to comment on how stupid this is, or how it simply does not compare?

But by all means let's cut the defense budget. They just added to my cost for health care but i bet yours didn't change, did it Dennis. because you earned it,  right? But go ahead and cut away at our defense. Which language would you care to learn?

Defense can save some money, by looking at waste, abuse , and fraud. but to simply cut our defenses is again,  stupid.

You see Dennis, some of us realize that we cannot continue to borrow money to pay for everything. You refuse to accept that as fact. If you would actually put your brain to work, and remove your blinders, the financial situation of this country would scare you to death. And you are afraid to cut the funding for even one little program. What will you do when no one will loan us any more?

I will gladly give up 10% of my retirement, if the federal government will cut every check they write by the same 10%.

Come up with solutions Dennis, instead of simply saying no......... (Gee where have we heard that before?)

[irishbobcat]

Funny how folks like Sarge and the conservatives can not see the real big picture on
why public television can not have advertisements.

Sarge and conservatives tend to forget how much control companies and advertisers
already have over commercial networks and cable channels.

If companies and advertisers don't like certain programming or fail to get "bang for their
buck" and pull ads, those programs die and are removed from the airwaves.

Commercial networks and cable networks are truly already at the mercy of  what to air or do not air because
of how much money comes their way from of companies and advertisers.

And now conservatives want to extend this so-called "business friendly" model to public broadcasting as well.

Sarge and the conservatives may try to sell you the fact that they are trying to find out ways to pay for the
"pet projects" of the left, when their real agenda is to down right destroy these programs and projects.

It's simply another power play move by the conservatives, again controlling America by use of the almighty dollar....



And while I'm at it, why can't we cut defense spending? Why can't the defense department begin to accept advertisements?

I can see it now, a nice McDonalds ad on the side of our tanks with the slogan, "Once we destroy your town we'll rebuild it
with a new McDonalds on every block!".

I'm lovin' it!

[sfc_oliver]

And no one has said that they want PBS to go away. Romney simply pointed it out as one program among many that we shouldn't be borrowing money to support. Dennis thinks we should borrow more money from China to keep PBS from closing up when all they have to do is accept advertisements.

And that is it plain and simple, what programs can we cut funding for and which programs can we not.

The left refuses to cut funding for anything, except maybe the military. And the right points out alternate ways to pay for one of their pet programs and we get this faux rage.....

It would be funny if not so tragic.

[Towntalk]

I am no great fan of PBS/NPR but when compared to all the other networks save ABC, CBS, and NBC it is better than most. My biggest gripe is the constant re-runs that most cable networks follow. On any given week for example, the History Channel may have five new eposodes of their programs, The Military Channel, same, Discovery, same, The Learning Channel, same, The Food Channel, ditto.  The news channels fare better.

My biggest complaint about PBS is its inconsistencies in its schedule. I enjoy the British comedy programs, the How-To programs and cooking shows which are superior to those on the Food Channel, but do not like their music shows. The Antiques Road Show is also a favorite in our house both the U.S. and British versions, but when they have fund raising drives which seem to be more frequent each season I avoid it like the plague.

As to the Major networks, the only time I watch WKBN-CBS, WFMJ-NBC, and WYTV-ABC is for the news.

If there is a good movie on one of the movie channels, I'll watch it, but that is rare.

What I do each morning first thing is check the TV listings, and deside what programs I watch that day, and if I draw a blank, I'll resort to my library of radio programs and only catch the news on TV.

Do I want to see PBS go away? No

[irishbobcat]

I guess I should use the far right Fox News Network to get the truth from, huh?

Sarge, considering you are a right wing conservative you easily swallow any idea put
forth by GOP politicians as the gospel truth. De-funding public broadcasting will not
have as much of a drastic impact on the budget that Mitt Rommey tries to convince
voters. De-funding public broadcasting will have an impact on those Americans who
do rely on public broadcasting in areas where commercial broadcasting refuses to
serve Americans because there is no profit to be made.

What You Need to Know About the Assault on NPR and PBS
BY Megan Tady
   On Saturday, the House passed a budget that entirely eliminates funding for public broadcasting. Congressional attacks on public media seem to come as regularly as NPR fundraising drives. Every year, as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) pleas for federal funding, some members of Congress denounce public media altogether, while others quietly vote to shave off another sliver of subsidies, rather than eliminate all funding. In the end, the CPB limps away still intact, but wounded.
This year, however, Congress has caught CPB fever, and a handful of members are trying to rid the nation of public broadcasting like it's the plague. Their "good media is bad for you" tactics are working; On Saturday, the House passed a budget that entirely eliminates funding for the CPB.
Without the $420 million in federal support, NPR, PBS, and thousands of locally–owned radio and TV stations will start to crumble. It's easy to focus on the congressional drama (the Senate will soon vote on its own version of the federal budget). But doing so distracts from the bigger problem: Our nation desperately needs vibrant public media. To put the current battle in a larger perspective, here's a public media primer.
What is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?
The CPB was created by the Johnson administration in 1968 as a taxpayer-funded, private, nonprofit corporation that facilitates noncommercial news and entertainment programming. The CPB supports nearly 1,300 locally owned and operated radio and TV stations across the country, and helps fund some of the programs you may be most familiar with, such as PBS' Sesame Street, NewsHour, and Frontline, and NPR's All Things Considered, Morning Edition and Marketplace, as well as American Public Media and Public Radio International.
More than 70 percent of CPB's funding goes to local stations around the country, providing the lifeblood for broadcasters in rural or economically hard-hit areas where there are fewer sources of news and programming. In some parts of the country, public media are the only source of local news and public affairs programs.
Why are attacks on public broadcasting so frequent?
The CPB is funded through a yearly federal appropriations process fraught with problems that has paralyzed the sector. Members of Congress (mostly Republicans) have always tried to gut funding for public broadcasting, claiming it is a bastion of left-wing propaganda. And while they've never been successful, each scouring attempt leaves public broadcasting with less support and forces the CPB to capitulate to congressional programming pressure in an effort to appease its enemies.
It's also important to remember that the push to de-fund public broadcasting is part of a larger mission: It's a war on culture, the arts and free speech. In relative terms, funding for public media is a tiny amount of money. It has almost nothing to do with reducing the deficit; it's simply an ideological attack.
Doesn't public broadcasting have enough money already?
No. In fact, it's a bit of an embarrassment. The United States has one of the lowest-funded public media systems in the developed world. The $420 million the federal government allocates annually works out to less than $1.50 per person to maintain the system. Compare that to the $30-$130 per person that other democractic nations like the United Kingdom, Sweden and Germany dedicate to public media. If the United States spent as much on public media as those countries, it would total $30 billion annually.
In a recent report comparing public media systems around the world, New York University professor Rodney Benson said:

We found that the best public media – the most independent and critical of government – were also the best funded. Safeguarded from the kind of partisan interference that has become all too common in this country, public media in the U.K., Germany, and other leading democracies are a key reason why their citizens are much more knowledgeable about government and international affairs than are U.S. citizens. Our research shows that quality public media strengthen the quality of democracy. Amount of funding isn't everything. But it does make a difference.

As U.S. newspapers and other corporate media continue to shrink, we should be pushing for more funding for public broadcasting. Instead, the fight today is about stopping an all-out assault on the system.
Is our public broadcasting system great?
No. It's good, but not great. It has the potential to soar, to branch out into other forms of media beyond broadcasting, to provide more diverse, local and in-depth reporting, and to fill the void left by a foundering corporate media. But the system is hamstrung by the lack of federal funds and an onerous and problematic appropriations process.
In search of funds, public radio and television stations are increasingly turning to underwriting–often from corporations–leaving them vulnerable to both corporate and political agendas. And yet, in survey after survey, the American people still rank public broadcasting as one of the best uses of tax dollars. Imagine the news, arts and culture programming we could have across media platforms if we had a public media system that was well-funded and insulated from political meddling.
Is this attack DOA at Obama's Door?
Probably. President Obama's proposed budget leaves funding for the CPB intact, so it's safe to presume that the president would dash congressional hopes of drowning the program. The Senate will be voting on its own version of a budget in March, and it may not include cuts to the CPB. So what's the big deal? Well, each successive attack–even if unsuccessful–sends a chilling message across the industry to not offend Congress and forces public broadcasters and the media reform movement to maintain a myopic view of what's possible for our media system.
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting explains:

...the politics of the current fight are clear: The right calls for budget cuts because it says NPR and PBS are too left-wing. Liberal defenders weigh in to defend the CPB budget, making few or no demands on public broadcasters. This all but guarantees that public broadcasting will continue to be pushed to the right, and further away from its intended mission.

Instead of pursuing opportunities to correct large problems–such as restructuring the funding mechanism to be more sustainable–public broadcasters and their umbrella organizations who do lobby on Capitol Hill are forced to focus on short-term battles to keep them afloat.
Should we be pushing for something better?
Definitely. Sign all the petitions and make all the calls you can now to tell your member of Congress you support public broadcasting. But in the long-term, this support must morph into a mandate for a transformed public media system.
Simply calling for more money through the same appropriations process won't do it; an independent, supplemental funding mechanism must be created as an endowment for public media in the form of a trust. The trust could be funded in a variety of ways, such as spectrum use fees and advertising taxes. We need to restore the firewall between the ebb and flow of politics and the on-the-ground reality of running public media stations. And we need to create a more diverse public media system (PDF link) that embraces the digital age.
All of this is achievable as long as we don't get sidetracked by the congressional circus that happens virtually every year. Fortunately, we should be able to juggle two balls at once: stopping the short-sighted attacks on public broadcasting and pushing for a world-class public media system in America.   

[sfc_oliver]

Why must we always lie about what people say?

Show me where Romney said his biggest problem was Big Bird..........

What he was saying is that the taxpayer should not be subsidizing PBS. That PBS has the means and should accept advertisements to defray the costs of running their programs instead of having the taxpayer pay for them.
It's called facts, that he used Big Bird as an example does not make Big Bird his biggest problem. Try using something other than the far left Huff Post to get the truth from......

[irishbobcat]

Interesting to see that Mitt Romney's biggest concern facing America is doing a complete
"makeover" of Big Bird.....

And the GOP wonders why America does not find any republican candidate a better replacement
to the President....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/29/putting-ads-on-big-bird-mitt-romney_n_1174291.html