Congress Spending tax payer money.

Originally posted by Davros: Google dear boy - Google - it can work wonders.

Thanks for nothing Davros and Donut, together you managed to provide nothing useful to the topic and waste my time, which was probably the whole goal anyway. Fortunately the time I am spending right now is keeping me from boredom between taskings.

[Donut]

Originally posted by MagiK: Quote: Originally posted by Davros: Google dear boy - Google - it can work wonders.

Thanks for nothing Davros and Donut, together you managed to provide nothing useful to the topic and waste my time, which was probably the whole goal anyway. Fortunately the time I am spending right now is keeping me from boredom between taskings. [/QUOTE]No - read my post. I said 'art good, guns bad'. It sums up the point that Davros' extract makes.

[Timber Loftis]

There's no conflict, MagiK. Subsidizing art simply does not compare to what guns and planes and roads cost. It's a miniscule percentage.

As for the fecal statues I thought about addressing it, but decided to wait until you brought it up. One loopy nut-job of a molehill does not a mountain make. That's ONE example - a paltry amount of "corruption" in the funding system. Plus, I'll note that it's worth risking some dollars flow to this stupid crap (no pun intended) that risk the pitfalls of having the government dictate what art is.

Attacking schools again - I've heard that song before. It is offtopic here. Besides you as "should we" not "how do we."

Final note: No matter the outcome of this vote, we will keep spending money on art. So, I win, you lose. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Oh, and I'm not an artist or a musician, lest you think I'm being self-serving.

[Davros]

Originally posted by MagiK: Quote: Originally posted by Davros: Google dear boy - Google - it can work wonders.

Thanks for nothing Davros and Donut, together you managed to provide nothing useful to the topic and waste my time, which was probably the whole goal anyway. Fortunately the time I am spending right now is keeping me from boredom between taskings. [/QUOTE]If you didn't want dissenting views then why did you post a poll with both yes and no as options? I voted YES, and you voted No and you seem to have a problem with they way I voted. You don't see me getting all offensive because you voted No, so I will thank you to try and be a bit politer about the fact that I have a different view.

[Timber Loftis]

Actually, Davros, I think MagiK is (not to put words in his mouth) upset at the obscure (to us) reference to Brittish tele. I didn't get it either. If you want to explain it, and let us in on the joke, that's great. If not, that's fine by me. Cheers.

[ 03-13-2003, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Masklinn]

I voted yes MagiK.
My reasons are really simple :

Art has always been, and will always be, a necessary part of humanity. And that's why a country should do everything in its power to promote art and give its citizens good access to it.

[antryg]

If the question is only directed to the National Endowment of Arts, then I would say that no funding is in order. I strongly believe that music and acting programs in schools should be given even more funding than they currently receive. Personally I would like to see governments role restricted to the roads and defense level. (No, this does not mean we shouldn't have diplomats, trade regulation, etc.) I believe that music and other art programs can and would survive without govt. help. We don't need "innovative" programs such as TL's recent exposure to the "f***" piece on a govt. subsidy. If a classic music group needs a govt. grant to say f***; then we should listen to heavy metal where they say it for free. (Unfortunately my sons band only had a 15 minute version of that song and it was all in English.)
I would also question whether "high art" does actually improve society. In this matter I am thinking about mueseums and opera. Personally I love and frequent mueseums but loathe opera. How, though, do these things help or uplift those teeming masses that cannot get access (due to distance) or lack of interest. What percentage of the population in Chicago attend the opera or go to its mueseums? What about the residents of Goober or Old Dimebox? In the past 10 years I've only been able to afford 1 holiday trip (3 days, 200 miles away, driving my own car). If the "arts" are only available to those in very large cities, and only used and "appreciated" by college educated individuals, is it right to pay for it with the tax dollars of the vast majority who do not want or do not have access to its benefits?

[Masklinn]

If the "arts" are only available to those in very large cities, and only used and "appreciated" by college educated individuals, is it right to pay for it with the tax dollars of the vast majority who do not want or do not have access to its benefits?

At least you recognize arts give "benefits" and thaz a good point.
If it is benefic then the govt. must ensure access to it. About giving everyone access to it, I agree with you, more things should be done.

In Paris for example, since 2 years now, all the city museum are totally free. And now we can see more and more ppl visiting them. This couldn't have been done without money from the city taxes.

Now for those who don't want...well...there are roads in my country, that have been built with money from taxes that I regulary pay, that I wont ever use nor want to use. Should I then refuse to pay my taxes ?

Originally posted by Davros: Quote: Originally posted by MagiK: Quote: Originally posted by Davros: Google dear boy - Google - it can work wonders.

Thanks for nothing Davros and Donut, together you managed to provide nothing useful to the topic and waste my time, which was probably the whole goal anyway. Fortunately the time I am spending right now is keeping me from boredom between taskings. [/QUOTE]If you didn't want dissenting views then why did you post a poll with both yes and no as options? I voted YES, and you voted No and you seem to have a problem with they way I voted. You don't see me getting all offensive because you voted No, so I will thank you to try and be a bit politer about the fact that I have a different view.[/QUOTE]Dissenting views are fine...but you have to give the view first. All you did was to be cryptic and incomprehensible to those not in on your television show.

Originally posted by Masklinn: I voted yes MagiK. My reasons are really simple : Art has always been, and will always be, a necessary part of humanity. And that's why a country should do everything in its power to promote art and give its citizens good access to it.

Your own words seem to make it clear that governments don't need to rob the citizens to subsidize artists....You said it your self
"Art has always been, and will always be, a necessary part of humanity" If that is the case, then Art won't die without the government redistributing wealth....

As a clarification. I dont mean highschool art classes...Im talking about independant artists getting government grants that appear to prop up unwanted "art" that people won't spend their own money on.

School art programs, sports programs etc...have ample money being supplied by taxes outside the NEA and other government give aways. School Systems need to eliminate the fraud and criminal waste...but that is [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img]


[ 03-13-2003, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]