Should PBS receive government funding?

The government subsidizes Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Banks and Big Agribusiness, Why not Big Bird too?

My kids watched PBS I'd rather spend money on that than Obama cell phones

If enough people and Corportaions support it will stay on the airwaves.

They get less that 3% of their funding now from the Federal Government.

It has received $100's of MILLIONS in FREE advertising to promote it's line of SESSIME toys, videos and movies!

WHY cannot it support itself?

No they should not be funded by the American tax payers. They are a political hack for the Democratic Party.

I think we have enough stations running off private advertising; it's nice to have a competing model.

Back when we had 7 TV Stations, having PBS was good.
These days, not so much. Sherry Shephard made a big deal of it bc of her son Jeffrey but I'd bet their TV's on Nickelodeon WAY more often than PBS.
There's a few shows that are good on PBS...I like that old man that goes and builds a cabin on his own but, nothing that I think our tax dollars should be funding.

I don't think i can yell it loud enough but, NO!!

There is no legal, ethical or common sense reason why PBS or NPR should be supported by taxpayer dollars. End all publicly-funded broadcasting of any kind.

PBS is extremely important and should be funded fully by taxpayers.

Why should i pay for something that i don't watch?!

NO!
Really like the nature shows and some of the British comedies, so I hope it makes it.

Just look at what their employees get paid. Way more than the private sector workers that are taxed to support their pay. They can sell commercial time just like other television networks do.

Let it run fully on sponsorship or donations.

Conservatards are living up to the -tard in their name. It's like these idiots only think all the taxes we pay to the gov't goes to only PBS, public education, and food stamps. Only about 15 percent of PBS's budget comes from federal funds, morons. that's only 0.012% of the federal government's budget. If we cut the funding to PBS to help balance the Federal budget, that is like deleting text files to make room on your 500Gig hard drive

So what cuts have to come from somewhere. You would be just another libtard who would fight every single cut no matter what it was. Its time to put on your big boy pants.

Let's see how long it stays on the air then!

No, it should make it on it's own. Most of it is party line crap anyhow.

No

No way. Not in this day and age.

Make them compete for a change...

Why would taxpayer money be used for a mouthpiece for the DNC.
These clowns have no pretense of being journalists and their bias is open for all to see.
If they are commercially viable they get to stay. Otherwise, out they go.
Liberalism isn't commercially viable.

Just no, they have a huge income (according to IRS - their worth is 400K which is double of Romney's) - they have said that the taxpayer money received is only 2% of their budget - seems to me that, with our deficit and debt, we can cut every 'nice but not necessary' program we have until such time as we are fiscally sound.

Million here a million there; pretty soon it adds up to real money.

They make enough money to run it and they have a definite agenda. Their programming is not educational unless you want stupid liberal children.

It should stand on its own merit not on the public dime

yes, we need a station that is advertising exempt.

If it sells in Cincinnati how will you keep it down on the FARM?????????????

The other stations are at the mercy of the advertisers.

Definitely, so they can create even better quality programming.

I am not dead set against public funding for PBS but I don't think they should have both commercials and tax money. I also don't like the way they put on such a phoney act. Recently the head of the local PBS station wrote a letter to the editor telling us to save the only "unbaised, independant voice" that is "free of commercial interests". I've watched many programs on PBS like: Now, Kneed to Know, Tavis Smiley etc etc that prove PBS is not an "unbiased independant voice". I also see "commercials" between programs that dispel the "free of commercial interests" claim as well. Sesame street alone makes millions on it's trademark. In full disclosure I give to PBS annually because I like some of the programs but more importantly because I think PBS kids programming is good quality and far better for kids than much of the Nickelodean or Cartoon Network crap any day. If public funding was reduced or cut I would freely donate more but don't blow smoke up my butt with "unbiased independant voice free of commercial interest".

But again there are so many government programs that should audited, reduced and even abolished, why are we talking about something that only receives 1 taxpayer dollar out of every 10000 spent.

We have to cut many things just like this. Its time they stood completely on their own feet.

I do agree with that it needs to stand on its feet. But how much of a difference will 0.012% make, we need to cut at least 35% to even be close to a balanced budget and I think we still need to cut more.

Well cuts have to start somewhere and 0.012% is a beginning.