PBS, CPB, NPR, GOP

[MRT144]

God, it's even worse than I thought: You're so argumentative that you know how **** works but you still blithely propose the same **** that people run campaigns upon but never follow through on.

[Hauldren Collider]

NONE of these are low hanging fruit judging by the reaction to cutting something as stupid and trivial as PBS.

If we're talking military line items, the low hanging fruit is actually the stuff that army doesn't want but Congress makes them have anyway.

[MRT144]

NONE of these are low hanging fruit judging by the reaction to cutting something as stupid and trivial as PBS.

Welcome to America!

But really, in the grand scheme of political posturing, cutting something like PBS is low hanging, because it totally makes a tiny impact on the overall picture, but all the while you're whistling past the budget graveyard with zombies like the military, SS, and medicare hanging out.

[The Mad Monk]

Dammit, Oerdin, where did you run off to?

[Guynemer]

I wish I could slap your face until you possessed knowledge through hand to face osmosis.

I wish I hadn't already used my "thanks" for the day.

[Hauldren Collider]

I wish I hadn't already used my "thanks" for the day.

This, coming from the guy who never says anything more insightful than "OMG **** AMERICA AND HUMANITY" and misconstrues knee-jerk cynicism for worldly maturity.

[giblets]

If we're talking military line items, the low hanging fruit is actually the stuff that army doesn't want but Congress makes them have anyway.

The stuff Romney wants and Obama doesn't?

[Hauldren Collider]

No, the stuff {insert congressman here} wants and nobody else does, but they give it to him for his committee vote.

[Hauldren Collider]

Welcome to America!

But really, in the grand scheme of political posturing, cutting something like PBS is low hanging, because it totally makes a tiny impact on the overall picture, but all the while you're whistling past the budget graveyard with zombies like the military, SS, and medicare hanging out.

And I'm pretty sure romney mentioned tackling those, too. The whole plan to overhaul medicare is to keep it from overwhelming our budget.

[giblets]

No, the stuff {insert congressman here} wants and nobody else does, but they give it to him for his committee vote.

Looks like Romney would add a lot of low hanging fruit on top of that.
edit:

Spoiler:

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are portraying themselves as lionhearted budget-cutters, ready to slice out profligate spending in all sorts of government programs and services and lead America to lower taxes and lower deficits. Many experts say their numbers don’t add up, even if they were to impose all the cuts they want.

Yet none of that philosophy seems to apply to the defense budget — which accounts for roughly half of all federal discretionary spending.

Instead of proposing sensible and necessary reductions, they would throw more money at a Pentagon that has had a blank check for more than a decade. The base budget for 2013 — not including war-related costs — is projected at $525 billion, up roughly 34 percent from 2001. By 2022, Mr. Romney’s plan would increase annual spending to $986 billion, according to an analysis by Travis Sharp of the Center for a New American Security.

The centerpiece of Mr. Romney’s proposal is a promise to spend at least 4 percent of gross domestic product on military personnel, procurement, operations and maintenance, and research and development. That would add as much as $2.3 trillion to the defense budget over 10 years from projected 2013 spending levels, according to Mr. Sharp’s analysis.

And yet for all these extra trillions, there’s no sense that this money would produce a more effective security strategy. Linking a budget to the G.D.P. is a bizarre way of addressing defense needs — which rationally should be based on a disciplined analysis of threats and the nation’s tolerance of risk. This certainly won’t provide any incentive for reform in a Pentagon that spends with more waste and less economic bang for the buck than other federal departments. Some conservatives have advocated the G.D.P. metric, saying it would ensure military strength by guaranteeing increased defense spending as the nation’s wealth rises. But others — like the anti-tax guru Grover Norquist — have urged Republicans to lead in reducing the military budget.

Mr. Romney is showing no restraint. Even though American forces are out of Iraq and withdrawing from Afghanistan by the end of 2014, his campaign Web site states that he would reverse President Obama’s plan to cut the Army and Marine Corps by 100,000 troops. Doing that, according to Mr. Sharp, would cost at least $41 billion over five years. Just what mission the extra troops would perform is unspecified.

Mr. Romney wants the Navy to increase shipbuilding from 9 ships per year to 15, at a cost of billions more. His position paper speaks of expanding the naval presence in the Western Pacific to counter China, which Mr. Obama is already doing. A campaign spokeswoman said many of the extra 100,000 slots would be used to staff the new ships, but that doesn’t begin to explain the need for sustained troop levels.

Mr. Romney also promises a “robust, multilayered national ballistic-missile defense system” to defend against nuclear attacks on the United States and its allies, even though the system has been under development for years and there is still no guarantee it will work.

And how would he pay for his huge new defense budgets? In an interview with Fortune, Mr. Romney spoke of “enormous opportunities for finding efficiency and cost savings in the military.” His targets, according to his campaign, would be the Pentagon’s civilian work force and reforms of the weapons procurement process. Such reforms are necessary but not easy, given inter-service rivalries and the clout of Congress and a well-financed defense lobby.

The Obama administration has committed to similar reforms, which the Pentagon says will save $210 billion over six years. That’s a start, but still just a fraction of what would be needed to offset the added cost of Mr. Romney’s G.D.P.-linked budget. The truth is that the added military spending would have to come from savaging most other federal programs, including those serving the most vulnerable Americans.

Mr. Ryan, of course, is now on board with the Romney plan. But he voted for the 2011 Budget Control Act, which mandated $487 billion in defense cuts over a 10-year period beginning in 2012 and $500 billion more beginning in 2013 if Congress doesn’t reach a deal on reducing the deficit. And the budget he produced as chairman of the House Budget Committee is less generous to the Pentagon. It would, however, make severe cuts in diplomacy and foreign aid. Such budgeting would lead to even greater overreliance on military might than already exists.

After a decade of unchecked spending growth, the Pentagon can prudently absorb significant reductions at a time when the country is under economic stress. President Obama has begun to put the brakes on spending by slowing the rate of growth. But billions more could be saved by cutting wasteful or unnecessary conventional and nuclear weapons programs.

Voters are entitled to an honest debate on defense priorities. They need to hear not just about weapons and troop levels, but about the threats the candidates see in the world and how diplomacy and other levers of power can also be used to keep the nation safe. So far, they’ve heard nothing more than generalities from Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan. Neither man has a background in national security, so it’s not surprising that they’re trying to prove their bona fides by embracing a profligate defense budget.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/opinion/sunday/how-mr-romney-would-force-feed-the-pentagon.html

[Jaguar]

Then we should tell the military to hire less people, not to cease recruiting methods that it finds effective.

This will not stop Albie from trying.

[Hauldren Collider]

I didn't realize we were forming our military recruiting policy around a single thrice-failed OCS candidate....?

[MRT144]

I didn't realize we were forming our military recruiting policy around a single thrice-failed OCS candidate....?

It's better than what we do now vis-a-vis NASCAR

[DinoDoc]

It's better than what we do now vis-a-vis NASCAR

How would you rate America's Army?

[Asher]

Not to mention we don't live in a totalitarian state. So there's no goddamn reason the government needs to own television and radio stations.

Some people think having news without an active for-profit motivation is inherently different than for-profit news stations.

Compare BBC with Fox News. Which has the most accurate coverage?

Even most GOP diehards should know the answer to that one, deep down.

PBS is a ridiculously tiny portion of your budget, yet it provides enormous good to young people and intelligent people. Only an idiot would look to cut PBS to save your budget.

How many PBSes can you fund with one B-2 Bomber?

Get your ****ing priorities in check, *******s. Honestly.