Physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson sums up Romney's position on PBS perfectly

[Hugabear]

Cutting PBS support (0.012% of budget) to help balance the Federal budget is like deleting text files to make room on your 500Gig hard drive

The notion that PBS is somehow a drain on the federal budget is laughable at best. It just further illustrates how far out of touch the rethugs are with reality.

You know what WOULD put a dent in the federal budget? Scaling back our military, pulling all of our troops out of the Middle East and Afghanistan, and closing down the majority of our overseas military bases. And do we really need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on new high-tech jet fighters, naval destroyers, and tanks? We could turn technology back twenty years and still enjoy a huge advantage over almost everybody else.

[ladjf]

1. Millions of Americans totally agree with Dr. Tyson. Unfortunately, the people making our laws

aren't among them. There are too many Congressmen who share their views with Congressman Broun of Georgia, who has the theology of the "Dark Ages" but yet is on the House Science and Space Committee. (Among other ignorant views, he thinks that the Earth is only 9,000 years old.)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/7/congressman-calls-evolution-lie-pit-hell/

[longship]

2. Love me some Neil deGrasse Tyson.

R&K

[ismnotwasm]

3. Heh

[malaise]

4. True but lots of rich ReTHUGs get rich feeding off the military

establishment

[TalkingDog]

5. We have a WINNAH!

Take the profit out of the equation.

[SunSeeker]

6. K&R

[JHB]

7. It's like trying to lose wight by shaving in the morning.

Technically there is a loss of mass, but it's not really accomplishing your stated goal.

[Xedniw]

12. That's a really good analogy.

I wish there were a way for that to get traction. That would make sense to a lot of people.

[ErikJ]

8. Jets and stuff the generals dont even WANT

Clearly its spending to enrich the War Profiteers that support Romney /GOP. The top 5 defense CEOs make ave $21 million a year!. THere should be a law that defense CEOs cant make more than the highest paid govt worker!

[ElboRuum]

9. It's the principle...

They think it's good to kill it because it neither creates wealth for or defends the wealth of people whose primary concern is that America be a place where wealth is accrued. Dagny Taggart and John Galt welcome by default, everyone and everything else just a drain on economic awesome.

[pasto76]

10. how about this article about military uniforms; 5BN, with another 4BN next year, for the army alone

and the UCP camo on my uniform doesnt EVEN WORK!!

9 Billion for army uniforms and gear in a decade. Romney COULD have mentioned something like this. But he didnt.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/09/28/report-slams-militarys-recent-camouflage-uniforms.html?ESRC=army-a.nl

[Coyotl]

11. It is awesome that Big Bird lends this reality to politics, Mitt is totally misfocused re the budget

Perhaps trying to deliver a failed zinger? ... that now bites his arse

[abelenkpe]

13. +1000 nt

[hue]

14. K&R

[Cha]

15. Thanks Hugabear! mittLies thought he was such

a big ol' threatening hotshot at the debate when all he did was stick his big foot in his stupid mouth.

[AnnieK401]

16. Billions for unnecessary weapons, nothing for Sesame Street.

Sad. Shows where the priorities of the Rethug party are.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

17. Have wingnuts fired back yet with some lame Pluto demotion joke?

And thank you, PBS, I just spent a rainy Sunday afternoon watching the 25th anniversary of Les Mis.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

18. I do not expect the Republican members of the Science Committee to understand (Akin, Broun, et al)nt

[synapticwave]

19. I disagree with cutting back on military hardware production.

I agree scaling back our active military operations and closing bases would be a nice dent in the military spending, but I think it's important to fully fund research and to press forward with the technology that lets us build the next jet fighter, the next destroyer and the next tank before someone else does. Staying ahead technologically is imperative. I don't think we need to build lots of new hardware assets, but I do think we need to continue to fund their research and development and have minimal production capabilities that we can scale up if we ever have to. So maybe that means we reallocate resources away from production capabilities and into R&D, but I think we need to keep spending levels (or increase them) on R&D.

[Hugabear]

21. Even if the military says they don't want or need it?

A lot of this stuff they have said they do not want.

[toby jo]

20. You got a point on the R&D

Military's using alot of solar to power equipment - there was a unit that had to deploy using all solar stuff, nobody wanted it at first, now they all like it. It's lightweight, & you're not gonna see action worrying about stuff going down.

But then there's this: marine friend of mine says we ALWAYS have a fighter jet in the air somewhere around this earth, off the destroyers - it's policy. Then he told me exactly how much the fuel weighs and costs to make that possible. (Don't remember) It's insane.

If they're out there armed to the teeth, they're gonna snarl, and they're gonna bite.