[Fr_Chuck]

PBS is a waste of tax dollars, like many "pork" projects that congress holds and shows their people they get for them.

They could get advertising, and do the same as any other radio station.
Even Christian radio that works on just donations stay in business.

So why should tax dollars be used to keep in operation a very bias radio system that is a entire waste of tax dollars

What just surprises me is why anyone supports it. Is it just because Bush is against it, maybe Bush should be asking for more and more money for it, then everyone would hate it.

[NeedKarma]

So why should tax dollars be used to keep in operation a very bias radio system that is a entire waste of tax dollars

How is it biased?

What just surprises me is why anyone supports it.

Just because you do not use that service doesn't mean it should disappear.

[NeedKarma]

"A key finding of the report shows there is no immediate evident correlation between conventional measures of education inputs, such as expenditures per pupil and teacher salaries, and educational outputs, such as average scores on standardized tests.

So what does have a positive correlation to student success? Anything at all?

Show me how PBS increases national reading writing or any other standardized test score.

How about you show me how abolishing it will increase these values.

[Mario3]

You know what? If PBS is suppose to be our version of a publicly funded station... we are in a grim grim girm state. Man why do we shut up everything does not bend over and kiss the conservative arse? Can't bush stop being scared of PBS?

[ETWolverine]

you know what? if PBS is suppose to be our version of a publicaly funded station...we are in a grim grim girm state. Man why do we shut up everything does not bend over and kiss the conservative arse? can't bush stop being scared of PBS?

Actually, it is liberals who are trying to shut down conservative media by reinstituting the fairness doctrine that would force conservative talk radio and newscasts to air an equal amount of liberal airtime. The fact that liberals have ABS, NBC, CBS (which tried to lambast Bush with fake documents right before the 2004 election), CNN, The New York Times (which has a history of leaking government secrets that hurt conservatives, but attacking those who leak government secrets that hurt liberals), Newsweek, The Washington Post, the LA Times, PBS, NPR, Time, etc. isn't enough for most liberals. These media, of course, would e exempt from the fairness doctrine. Only FOX and conservative talk radio would be affected. They want all news outlets to be liberal or else have them shut down.

And again, Mario, nobody is talking about shutting down PBS programming. We're just talking about not funding them with federal tax dollars. If the shows are so important and so good, they can stand on their own without federal support. If they can't, then they deserve to be cancelled.

Elliot

[inthebox]

So what does have a positive correlation to student success? Anything at all?


How about you show me how abolishing it will increase these values.

As a parent, you might agree with this:

"q the less television viewed per weekday by elementary students the higher their achievement in reading, language and math;
q the less television viewed on a weekend day the higher the language achievement for both elementary and secondary students;
q and the more books in the home the higher the secondary students' scores for both language and math."
From
Canadian Home School Study

And
"The message is loud and clear. More money does not mean a better education. There is no positive correlation between money spent on education and student performance. Public school advocates could refocus their emphasis if they learned this lesson. Loving and caring parents are what matters. Money can never replace simple, hard work."
From
HSLDA | Academic Statistics on Homeschooling




No one said anything about "abolishing" it, just not having the taxpayors fund it. Let PBS stand on its own merits.






Grace and Peace

[NeedKarma]

Wow, you've changed the discussion from the funding of public television to 'how much TV should kids watch'. Bravo.

Of course I totally agree with loving parenting being the key to a child's development and I believe what they watch is as important as how much and guess what? My kids watch more PBS TV than any other station (though the older one likes YTV a lot now).

[ETWolverine]

My kids don't wath any TV at all. And my son, who will be going into first grade this fall has a 3rd grade reading level, while my kindergarten-aged daughter is already learning to read full sentences. No PBS for them, and yet they outperform their PBS-watching peers in reading, and probably in math as well, though I am not as familiar with math standards as I am with reading standards.

PBS doesn't teach kids to read. It teaches kids to mimick what they see on TV. And it teaches parents to use the TV as a babysitter.

Now... I'm not against TV per se. I watch enough TV for my whole family, and then some. But InTheBox is right... there is a definite provable negative correlation between TV time and reading and math skills... if only because the amount if time kids are spending watching TV is time they aren't spending doing homework or reading a book. So to say that TV of any form, even PBS, promoes reading and math skills is somewhat disingenuous.

But again, even if that weren't true, that doesn't mean that my tax dollars have to fund it. And for me, that is the real issue... the government taking my money to support a cause that I would not choose to support on my own, and which, in realitym doesn't need my support, because it could stand on its own if we let it.

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

I hear what you're saying and BTW my kindergarten daughter is reading books to us as well.

I don't use the roads in Atlanta, I don't think taxpayer money should fund its maintenance. Also there should be no Medicare because I don't use it - they should cut all funding to it.

[ETWolverine]

I hear what you're saying and BTW my kindergarten daughter is reading books to us as well.

I don't use the roads in Atlanta, I don't think taxpayer money should fund its maintenance. Also there should be no Medicare because I don't use it - they should cut all funding to it.

First of all, they should indeed cut all medicare funding. It should be replaced with personal healthcare accounts. But that is a sepparate discussion.

And with regard to roads, the Federal Government has a constitutional requirement to maintain roads, and that is one of only THREE items specifically detailed by the constitution that the government is required to set taxes for: road maintenance and development, maintenance and upkeep of a military/police force, and maintaining a mail system. So, sorry, but your analogy is wrong.

But I'm not saying that the government shouldn't fund PBS because I disagree with the programming on PBS and don't watch it. I'm saying they shouldn't fund it because it isn't necessary to do so, and it really isn't their job to do so. It isn't neessary because the programs SHOULD be self-funding or else they should be cancelled. And it isn't the government's job to fund it because it isn't the government's job to determine what is and what is not art and entertainment and which arts and entertainment should be funded by the federal government and which ones fail their particular test of worthiness. It's a first amendment issue.

So, aagain, I'm not saying PBS shouldn't be federally funded because I don';t use it. I'm saying it shouldn't be funded because there is no need to do so (the primary reason) and because the government has no business doing it (secondary reason).

My comments about "funding what I would not shoose to fund on my own" were directed at any wealth redistribution scheme in which the government takes my earnings and uses them to fund programs and charitable causes that I wouldn't choose to donate to on my own. The NEA and PBS are good examples, but they aren't the only ones.

There's an old joke that a liberal and a conservative are walking together and they see a poor man. The Conservative takes out $10 from his pocket and buys the guy lunch. The liberal is impressed with this and decides to do the same thing. And so, the next time they pass a poor man, the liberal takes $10 out of the conservative's pocket, gives $2 to the poor guy for a snack and keeps $8 as a service fee. That's what I have a problem with. If I want to donate to PBS programs through their telethon, I can do that on my own. But I don't need the government taxing me for that purpose.

Elliot