Case in point: Taxpayer support for the arts. If there's a market for it, won't people pay for it voluntarily? Some guy who gets a Masters in Fine Arts and paints crap that no one wants to buy is deserving of taxpayer handouts? I know, I know, if the taxpayers don't pony up at the barrel of a gun we'll turn the place into a barren wasteland devoid of "culture" (whatever that is).
2007-07-18 12:47:25 · 13 answers · asked by RP McMurphy 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
According to every Democrat I know, the answer is yes. I don't know how anybody is "entitled" to the money I earn from my blood, sweat, and tears. Such a claim is absurd, oppressive, and just plain evil. All entitlement programs must be ended for us to truly be the "land of the free".
2007-07-18 12:53:13 · answer #1 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Although I think some NEA spending may be questionable, consider the alternative where all goverment spending must be as low cost and utilitarian as possible and you get East German type of architecture.
Great societies have historically had great art. Micheangelo's David was originaly in the public square. The work enriched the lives of the citizens. Imagine DC where every building was square and there were not monuments but just plaques.
We are are rich enough to afford a few works of art here and there. By the way, we are spending over 400 billion on millitary spending or over 40% the global total. If our values are what we spend then our legacy without art could be one of the New Sparta.
2007-07-18 20:06:11 · answer #2 · answered by David K 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Productive people owe nothing to anybody. You are productive because YOU made the decision to be!!
And in response to AJ's Girl,
No You don't "have to" people end up doing so because they keep electing the same idiots over and over that control what happenes to tax money..ALWAYS REMEMBER during election season..The Presidential election means squat, it is a red herring, The TRUE election of importance is Congressional, the House and senate have the power to take your money, but most people pay little attention to it.
And to "dumdum" , Your handle fits you, As you probably don't realize that plenty of us ARE in fact over here fighting, It is nice to know that you sit on YOUR couch and call this war bogus, I can assure you ma'am, It is not "bogus" from my perspective. You see what the media allows you to see on TV, I see the front lines (or lack thereof) with my own two eyes. So do me and the rest of my comrades a favor, Go back and sit on YOUR lazy *ss, and let the people actually fighting, determine the nobility of the cause. If you would like to further a discussion on the matter so that you might be re-educated as to what is actually happening here, I have opened my profile page to you, Please send me an email subject line---dumdum. Thanks
2007-07-19 05:51:26 · answer #3 · answered by Linderfan 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, but throughout history, keeping the unproductive micro-minority at least at subsidence level much reduces crime, rebellion, etc. These things are expensive to the government and the people. A safety net is insurance of sorts. However, if churches were doing their job, THEY would be providing charitable help, not the government and it would certainly be cheaper for the government to work through existing organizations rather then by creating the huge, inefficient, expensive bureaucracy known as welfare and social security. Basically, one pays one way or another.
As far as your examples, I agree completely. The money could be better spent in many ways including further tax cuts. Special interest groups are sure good at getting the pork.
2007-07-18 20:00:33 · answer #4 · answered by Caninelegion 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Productive people don't "owe" anybody anything. It is everyone's moral obligation to work for the better of themselves, in turn helping others. The solution in this country is to just tax the hell out of the rich in order to pick up the slack for the poor. Current social programs do nothing but keep the poor poor and their answer is to keep moaning about their situation instead of doing something about it.
2007-07-18 20:36:28 · answer #5 · answered by SA 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the people who actually worked for a living did pay all the Liberal Art folks to make paintings that no one wants, then who would serve coffee at Starbucks:)?
2007-07-18 20:35:37 · answer #6 · answered by Clown 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
no they dont. you are absolutely correct regarding modern art:
to quote a great movie Full Metal Jacket
"you are so ugly you could be a modern art masterpiece"
Art these days is nothing more than crap. IF you need someone to interpret it for you its not worth seeing or knowing about. This applies to things you can read and see for yourself.
2007-07-18 20:08:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Same with NPR radio...the liberals always want the tax dollars for their own purposes.
2007-07-18 19:56:43 · answer #8 · answered by corncrackin 1 · 3⤊ 1⤋
As you gladly support hundred of billions in taxpayer money for a bogus war that you support, yet sit on your lazy *ss while other "productive people" are in Iraq fighting it for you.
2007-07-18 19:56:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Let capitalism free!
2007-07-18 19:52:54 · answer #10 · answered by Constitutional Watchdog 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋