All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > What really eats me up...
11/8/2012 4:21 PM
How do TV shows make money if they don't get it from the gov't?

Are you suggesting that PBS would disappear and the current employees would not find work or simply replace other workers?  
11/8/2012 4:23 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/8/2012 4:21:00 PM (view original):
How do TV shows make money if they don't get it from the gov't?

Are you suggesting that PBS would disappear and the current employees would not find work or simply replace other workers?  
**** it, you're too stupid for this.
11/8/2012 4:28 PM
I've felt the same way about you for days if not weeks.

Humor me.  
How do TV stations/shows make money?
Would PBS dissolve without gov't assistance?
If they did, would their employees go straight to unemployment lines?

The fundamental difference is that I think certain businesses have to stand on their own two feet.  You think the gov't has to be their training wheels.  

Free enterprise vs. Big Government  
11/8/2012 4:30 PM
As I suggested a few days ago, maybe the gov't should just print money and give it out to individual citizens.   The would spur spending. 

Of course, I said that because it's a stupid idea much like supporting a TV station is a stupid idea.
11/8/2012 4:38 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/8/2012 4:28:00 PM (view original):
I've felt the same way about you for days if not weeks.

Humor me.  
How do TV stations/shows make money?
Would PBS dissolve without gov't assistance?
If they did, would their employees go straight to unemployment lines?

The fundamental difference is that I think certain businesses have to stand on their own two feet.  You think the gov't has to be their training wheels.  

Free enterprise vs. Big Government  
I'm not arguing the merits of the spending. Get that through your exceptionally thick skull.

The government spends tons of money on all kinds of things. Plenty of them are wasteful and stupid. Plenty of them should be cut. But if we had spent the last four years cutting spending to the point that the deficit was reduced by half, the economy would be back in a recession.

And that is worse than a high deficit.
11/8/2012 6:54 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/8/2012 4:30:00 PM (view original):
As I suggested a few days ago, maybe the gov't should just print money and give it out to individual citizens.   The would spur spending. 

Of course, I said that because it's a stupid idea much like supporting a TV station is a stupid idea.
If you get this - that basically the $450 million for PBS could be considered to being printed exclusively for that purpose, since it's far less than the size of the deficit - then you should understand that if we're actually going to cut the deficit by that $450 million the money doesn't just reappear in the private sector.  It never gets printed.  Period.  End of story.  Maybe the private sector moves things around and finds a way to keep PBS afloat, or at least their better employees, but the money doesn't come back, the existing private sector money just gets moved around some.
11/8/2012 7:03 PM
If anything there's an extra $450 million dollars in China somewhere, but the impact on OUR economy of that $450 million is negligible at best.
11/8/2012 7:16 PM
Posted by dahsdebater on 11/8/2012 7:03:00 PM (view original):
If anything there's an extra $450 million dollars in China somewhere, but the impact on OUR economy of that $450 million is negligible at best.
I've got it invested in bootleg DVDs.
11/9/2012 8:14 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/8/2012 4:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/8/2012 4:28:00 PM (view original):
I've felt the same way about you for days if not weeks.

Humor me.  
How do TV stations/shows make money?
Would PBS dissolve without gov't assistance?
If they did, would their employees go straight to unemployment lines?

The fundamental difference is that I think certain businesses have to stand on their own two feet.  You think the gov't has to be their training wheels.  

Free enterprise vs. Big Government  
I'm not arguing the merits of the spending. Get that through your exceptionally thick skull.

The government spends tons of money on all kinds of things. Plenty of them are wasteful and stupid. Plenty of them should be cut. But if we had spent the last four years cutting spending to the point that the deficit was reduced by half, the economy would be back in a recession.

And that is worse than a high deficit.
What's this obsession with "half"?   Why does it have to be "half"?   Why can't it be a few million dollars at a time?  You know, the way we got into a trillion dollar deficit.
11/9/2012 8:15 AM
"If we can't cut the deficit by 50% today, we may as well not even try"  -  bad_luck circa yesterday
11/9/2012 10:28 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/7/2012 3:55:00 PM (view original):
To pretend the deficit isn't a problem is to have one's head in the sand.   Nonetheless, it doesn't have to take priority but it can't be ignored either.

Even so, I like people who say what they'll do to actually do what they say. 
Obama said he'd cut half the deficit in his first term. If Obama had done what he said he was going to do, we'd be back in a recession.

11/9/2012 10:32 AM

So you supported the reelection of a President whose stated intentions would have, in your opinion, harmed American if he had done what he had promised?

11/9/2012 10:34 AM
I believe what bad luck is saying is Obama was wise for not following through on what he said he would do, and therefore made a good decision. I would agree with that for the most part.
11/9/2012 10:39 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/9/2012 10:28:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/7/2012 3:55:00 PM (view original):
To pretend the deficit isn't a problem is to have one's head in the sand.   Nonetheless, it doesn't have to take priority but it can't be ignored either.

Even so, I like people who say what they'll do to actually do what they say. 
Obama said he'd cut half the deficit in his first term. If Obama had done what he said he was going to do, we'd be back in a recession.

I'm not sure of this.   Do you have anything, anything at all, to confirm this certainty?

4 years is a long time.    You seem to want it done in one day.   IIRC, it was 1.4t when he started and is 1.1t now.   He was about 40% to his goal.   Did he damage the economy by doing that?   If so, why did he get re-elected?   He failed on a promise and damaged the economic recovery. 
11/9/2012 11:14 AM (edited)
Posted by tecwrg on 11/9/2012 10:32:00 AM (view original):

So you supported the reelection of a President whose stated intentions would have, in your opinion, harmed American if he had done what he had promised?

Did he follow through on it?

EDIT: Irony alert, are you upset he didn't follow through on it and harm America?
of 34
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > What really eats me up...

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.