Goverment funding of the arts: it’s a value judgement, and thus largely subjective. Is there any chance that we could just drop this on the grounds that neither side can win in any real sense, and that it has little relevance to the thread?
You’re right because other people agree with you?
Guess what - lots of people agree with the opposing point of view.
The fact that it is a value judgment is what makes it relevant. Government funding is full of value judgments like that.
No; this isn’t the kind of question that really has an objectively right answer. However; part of the job of the government is to implement people’s desires, and if some people desire that it fund the arts that in itself is a good enough reason to do so.
This argument is inherently flawed. If you’ve got enough people on your side to make the argumentum ad populum that artists should not be dependant on corporations and churches for funding, you don’t need the the government playing favourites with other people’s money to do it - just find artists you like, and give them money yourself. Voila! Artists whose funding is not dependant on corporations and churches!
I’m still waiting for the OP to explain the “simple” math behind the fix for his first problem. This isn’t a matter of opinion, but how the numbers add up.
So, how about it?
Here I thought this was going to be a P=NP debate.
If the idea is to try to reduce poverty, but not necessarily eliminate it, what about a program that funds various aid programs and over time, increases the funding for the programs that prove to be the most successful at reducing poverty?
I admit I find this argument most unpersuasive.
To some extent I can see the logic, but if something is economic folly and 51% of the people want it, is that really reason enough for the government to abandon its responsibility to act rationally?
Suppose I can convince 51% of the people of a city to build a billion-dollar football stadium. After all, I don’t see why the NFL’s any less culturally valuable than paintings or opera. Every honest study done into the economic effects of publically funded sports stadiums says that it’s just money set on fire and does no good whatsoever. If I as mayor know that, should I ignore that fact just because 50+1 of the constituents think it’s a good idea right now?
I agree there’s something to be said for the people getting what they want, especially if the matter is honestly dealt with and not the usual stack of lies that accompany every pet spending project, but it’s only one factor among many. “The people want it” is not an automatic pass.
Brilliant! Good show!
Increase taxes equally across-the-board. If you are a taxpayer and you paid $X dollars, you now pay $X times 1.1. Cut spending equally across-the-board. If something was budgeted for $X dollars last year, it now has $X times 0.9 in the coming year.
Wrong.
Try Fermat’s Last Theorem. Verify the recently developed proof for it, while you’re at it.
If you mean the examples you included in your OP are “hard problems” and what you offer as a solution are “obvious and blindingly simple” answers, then you’ll have to take that up with a psycho-linguist.
It would seem you have your own personal definitions of “hard problems” and “simple answers”.
And what of the fact that this is a profoundly stupid idea and would wreck the economy? If the working poor and middle class have to up their taxes by ten percent some number of them will be pushed into poverty. And now the government would have less money than the year before to assist them. It would drive down consumer demand during the economic downturn. That’s pure lunacy.
Honestly, it’s simply a terrible idea, and it has zero merit as a serious solution.
No. Your idea is utter nonsense. My idea can actually be implemented and would require serious thought and consideration to find the funding and design the programs. It is an idea that is much, much more complex and nuanced than the drivel you’re promoting. And a full description of it would fit volumes. Improving education is something that is an ongoing goal and requires the input of experts and lifetimes of experience.
Poor people setting up trustfunds is just silliness.
What are you going to do with 9/10ths of a bridge?
This.
Look, Controvert, what you don’t get is that these solutions you propose still need to somehow be implemented. Implementing wide-spread reform or unpopular fixes is incredibly hard. You ever notice how Obamacare was 3000 pages long? Yeah. There’s a reason for that.
OK… so for 2011 revenues are estimated at $2.15 trillion. Expenditures are $3.77 trillion. (This is just one estimate, but the numbers are all roughly similar).
90% of $3.77 trillion is $3.393 trillion. 110% of $2.15 trillion is $2.365 trillion.
Congratulations, you just reduced the deficit to only ~$1 trillion.
How much would it save?
Here, I’ll help. Combined budgets for those three departments (which includes stuff that obviously has to be done somewhere else - tracking nuclear material, for example) was $8.973 billion (EPA projected for 2012), $29.5 billion (Energy 2012 request), and $69.9 billion (Education 2011 budget) = $108 billion.
Congrats, added to Contravert’s “simple plan”, y’all now only have $900 billion left!
Heh, on preview I see you added HHS to Rick Perry’s “Oops” list. I’m not including that, because 84% of its budget is Medicare and Medicaid and I don’t think you mean to eliminate both of those. If you want to include only their discretionary program you can add another $80 billion or so to your cuts.
Thank-you. You saved me the trouble of looking up those numbers and doing the math.
Yes, because social mobility (education), environmental protection (EPA, Department of Energy), solid energy policy (Department of Energy), and fucking Medicare administration (HHS) are not, combined, worth $100B. Jesus christ, are you really that willing to swallow extreme right-wing talking points whole? Excuse me for being so “against the grain”, but I like our children smart enough to compete in a global market, our water clean enough to drink, our air clean enough to breathe, our children not ballooning up like Violet Beauregard, and our future holding electricity. Note, before you pull out that “free market will take care of it” garbage, that none of these things are, in the short term, profitable, and may not ever become profitable – many of them fall into the realm of “hidden costs”; costs that the corporations do not have to deal with; at least, not until their CEOs roll over and die of lung cancer.