You know what ** Aldebaran ** I was in the midst of typing a response to your post then I thought why bother. You did not adress any of my points you merely said how the United States is the Great Satan. You do not seem like you want to look past your hatred and bigotry to see the logical reasons why we have an interest in the middle east. I don’t think I will force you to so I am not even going to bother.
Yes, DEFENCE spending is desirable and necessary. However, OFFENCE spending is not.
While I agree that the examples you mentioned above are debatable as works of art, living in a world without art and music would be a barren existence indeed. Art, music, literature, etc. bring joy to many. I believe that it is incumbent upon a modern, advanced society to give adequate support to the Arts for the benefit of all its citizens.
This isn’t an a la carte resturant where you get to choose what you want to pay for. It is not only irresponible, but also selfish to think only of yourself.
The big picture is that we elect politicians to make choices on spending which are supposed to be the best for the majority of the people, not for individuals. Unfortunately, our political system is so corrupted that decisions on how to spend money are more often based on trading favors or who owns who, rather than the what is best for all. Our only power to vote for someone else next time around.
Shock and horror. It saddens me that you have such a profound disrespect for the arts based on a few free expressions that you disagree with. I’ll even include a sad face. 
You made me do it.
takes a moment to recover
In any event, the arts are as necessary as defense spending. If there is no culture, there is nothing to defend. Nothing worthwhile, anyway. In fact, with no culture, you will be overwhelmed by another culture, and eventually your civilization will eat away at itself from the inside. Look at Imperial Russia and France and Germany. Having spent my years in college studying Russia, I’ve learned about the horrors of lacking a national culture, of lacking national arts. So unless you want to end up an effeminant fop wannabe Frenchman, I’d support some local artists.
You made me sad. I’m going to go stare at a painting for a few minutes. And throw in another sad face.
So, do you conservative/Libertarian folks support the current adminstration’s policy of cutting taxes while increasing spending?
See, you make the automatic connection from, “Art is good” to “Art should be funded by the government.” This is a very liberal mindset. Conservatives just don’t think that way.
I also like Rock n’ Roll, but I don’t want the government subsidizing rock bands. I like reading, but I don’t want the government to subsidize authors. So why should they subsidize painters and public TV producers?
I would also suggest that government funding of art is detrimental, because it removes the need to produce art that people actually want. In Canada, we have all kinds of subsidies for artists, and even laws that force us to buy the works of Canadian artists. I don’t see that it has any benefit at all, and in the case of television I would argue that Canadian Content regulations make it much worse, because when you have a captive audience and government money, you don’t have to worry about things like, say, quality.
’
i would also suggest that government funding of art is regressive taxation, because it tends to benefit the rich. I mean, the Metropolitan gets government funding. When is the last time you saw someone on minimum wage at the Met? Opera houses, museums, and other ‘high art’ facilities are generally used by people who are fully capable of footing the entire bill. And yet they are partially funded by taxes collected from workers who will never set foot in such places.
Either you’re new to this sight or you’ve never met Aldebaran. His horse will always be taller than yours.
I lost his train of thought when he argued that Islamic terrorists don’t exist because it is against Islam to take innocent lives. I also didn’t get his chastisement of religion in US politics when he is from a region where Mullah’s have their own personal army.
Aldebaran has, IMO, chosen to speak against President Bush from the perspective of a Muslim. Given there is no cohesive quality of the religion between warring factions within Iraq his opinion is his own. If he want’s to make the case that the people of Iraq want to revert back to pre-colonial feudalism he is welcome to try. However, I don’t think there are any polls that will back this up.
I think the people of Iraq will benefit from the way the war was carried out for a number of reasons. Had the United States fought the first Gulf War to surrender it would have been a total blood bath. It was the reason the war ended early with Saddam in power. Hundreds of thousands of troops would have died in the retreat and Bagdad would have suffered substantially. The civilian casualties would have been high.
Had the United States backed the Southern Shites there would have been a bloody civil war comparable to Afghanistan’s war against the Soviet Union. Saddam would have used any means (and did) to suppress such a revolt. Had the Southern Shite’s been successful, there would have been a feudal domination over the Northern Kurds and minority Sunni’s. Mullah (General) Sadr has already shown he is willing to kill as many people as necessary to grab power.
The 2nd Gulf war was not done in secrecy. There was an obvious buildup prior to the event followed by a clear demand for Saddam to surrender totally to UN demands. We named the time and the place of the war. The United States used the most precise weapons ever assembled in an attempt to limit civilian casualties. All that was necessary to avoid harm was to relocate away from Saddam’s regime.
It would have been nice if the UN was an organization capable of dealing with Saddam. It was not. It only took one bomb to send them running. Under no circumstances was the UN able to contained Saddam in the region. That is why the United States was there and that is why the United States was attacked in 9/11.
I welcome any scenarios that would have stopped Saddam’s drive for power in the region. Given his past use of mustard gas and sarin in neighboring wars and civil wars, his attempt at building super guns, and his admitted attempts at nuclear weapons, it defies logic that he should remain in power. He would have perfected or purchased a nuclear weapon at some point in the future. Aldebaran will not admit which country he is from other than to say he is neighbor to the region. With a nuclear weapon Saddam could attack Iran (again), crush the Kurds (again), attack Israel (again), or attack Kuwait (again).
He has challenged the US in the no-fly zones (which were set up to protect the Kurds and the Southern Shites). He has attempted to assassinate a former US President. He pigeonholed UN inspections from day 1. IMO, his removal solves many problems and will probably save many lives.
I’m not giving GWB my vote. This year I’m voting for Peroutka
no, I don’t beleive he’ll win.
no, I don’t beleive I’m making a difference.
But I’ll be damned if I’m giving either one of those other clowns my vote.
See Sam, you still need to practice up on your reading. I placed my actual quote here for you to reread. You’ll note that I did not use the word “funded”. Instead I used “adequate support”. While that may include direct funding in some cases (which I personally am not unhappy to see my taxes go to), it is not absolute. There are many other ways to show support, including tax breaks, leasing un/underused government buildings to artists, sponsoring community shows and so on.
The numbers I quoted in my post are from rough memory when I crunched through the numbers in the Historical Tables of the U.S. Federal Budget. But, here is a site that gives a similar, albeit slightly different, way of analyzing things.
iamme99: My reading skills are just fine, thank you. I suggest you think about the context of your statements. When I say that government should not be funding the arts, and your response is that the arts are important and need to be supported, the clear inference is that this is a defense of government support of the arts. Further, it is you who is making the leap from, “Art is important” to “Therefore, government should support it”. That’s what this whole discussion is about, for pete’s sake.
If you now want to claim that your comment should not be construed as support for government funding of the arts, fine by me. But that’s clearly not what your response indicated when taken in context.
No, I just don’t want you to put words in my (or anyone else’s mouth) as you are wont to do. I stand by my explanation to you. What I said is what I meant to say. Now, if you weren’t sure about the meaning of the statement I made, then please ask, instead of jumping to your own [incorrect] assumptions. AGAIN: support does not necessarily equal directly funded.
milroyj, if you could actually defend your position, you wouldn’t find it necessary to drag out the most extreme example of art, and not give any mention at all to the atrocities our military has committed.
How did *libertarianism * get into this discussion? Neither Bush nor Kerry is one, under any examination of their actual records. Why would either get the absolute loyalty of a libertarian ideologue? On what basis would one conclude that Bush is motivated by anything resembling libertarian principles rather than simply selfish ones? Sam, I’ll ask again: Is your absolute support for Bush your conclusion or your premise? And I’ll ask another: You have an election coming up before we do. Who do *you * plan to vote for (or against, if you insist), and why? Let’s see these claimed “principles” of yours supported, okay?
There are very good reasons why support for libertarianism has been stuck in the statistical noise forever. It has no way to show that there is anything to it other than codification of simple selfishness, for one. The policy proposals that come out of it cannot survive contact with reality, for another. Even Libertarian himself, an active and independent thinker (to say the least), no longer uses the name.
milroyj, it should be simple to grasp: If you don’t want to pay for things, don’t be upset with anyone when they’re not there for you, either. Just apply Kant’s Categorical Imperative, or even just the Golden Rule, to these alleged “principles” and you’ll run into conflict after conflict that you cannot resolve in favor of so-called “libertarianism”.
The Golden Rule, eh? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Works for me. I don’t steal from my neighbors, but I am puzzled by the fact that my liberal neighbors are hell-bent on stealing from me. YMMV.
I’m not voting for Bush, so I can’t answer the OP. However, I would like to add my view of spending.
It seems to me that Conservatives are saying, “We have no interest in supporting program X.” Liberals are saying, “We believe program X is worth supporting.” Obviously, any given program is “worth supporting” or “necessary” or “not worth supporting” or “unnecessary” depending on one’s desires.
Now, a program might have no direct bearing on a particular person; but it’s still worth the support of the populace as a whole. For example, the government should support education. But why should I pay for it? I don’t have kids. It’s highly unlikely that I’ll ever have kids. Of what use is public education to me?
Public education is good for the country as a whole. Educated people are more productive, and generate more income for themselves and the country. As someone who receives, or may receive someday, support from the government, it is in my interest that children are educated so that they can pay higher taxes than they would if they were in a menial job, so that the government has the money to support programs of which I might make use – even though I’m not using public education to educate my own (nonexistant) children.
So taxes are a good thing because they provide services to the majority of the people. Some people may not use those services, but they still benefit from them.
Why do Liberals support such things as Universal Health Care? Partly because it is the right, humane, indeed, Christian thing to do. But healthy people are more productive than sick ones. So it is in everybody’s interest that people remain healthy. Healthy people generate more income for the government, which go to programs that people use (recognising that not all people use all programs at the same time). Healthy people are more likely to take vacations, go to the cinema, and to buy consumer items. In other words, UHC should be good for the economy. We’ll still be paying insurance premiums; but instead of being denied certain services or not being able to see a doctor of one’s choice, the premium would be paid by a payroll tax. The insurance payment disappears from the worker’s pay stub, and and insurance tax replaces it. And UHC would ensure that people who lose their jobs will still be covered.
But what of the Arts? Do the Arts keep people physically able to keep the economy going, like UHC? Do they educate people so that they can obtain better jobs? Of what use are they? The Arts stimulate people’s minds. We hear a lot about “thinking outside the box”. Much of art – music, paintings, sculpture, you name it – involves the manipulation of symbols. Manipulating symbols and concepts are central to this “outside the box” thinking that is so prized in our business. Art results in new ideas. New ideas are often profitable – which is good for the country.
I don’t like to pay taxes any more than anyone else. But I would feel much better about paying them if they more money went to health care, education (including higher education), art and science, than to wars of aggression and big corporations and their CEOs. The purpose of our government is to benefit the people. When most of the money goes to a minute segment of the elite, then something is wrong.
Okay, I have to mention Bush. I lost my job under Bush’s watch. Off-shoring of our IT industry seemed to pick up pace under since he took office. When Tata (of India) came in, half of our department were made redundant. Sure, I found another job. After five months. At less than half of my previous salary. With no holidays. And I’m still uninsured. While technically one of the jobs that was lost under Bush’s leadership was replaced, I personally do not see lost jobs being replaced by equivalent positions. (And the three former co-workers with whom I still correspond are still out of work.)
Sure you do…at least by your definition of stealing. Everytime you hop into your car for example, you are “stealing” in various ways by using the roads, by using up a gasoline resource that you don’t pay the full cost of at the pump, by polluting the air and contributing to global warming. Indeed, by these standards, you very much are stealing from me. In fact, in regards to the environmental issues, you are “stealing” from me in a way that I consider much worse than just taking some of my money.
So, let he who is within sin cast the first stone.
Otherwise, don’t lecture us with your B.S. about how your liberal neighbors are stealing from you.
One more thing: In 1980 during the Presidential debates, Ronald Reagan asked, “Are you better off now than four years ago?”
As in 1980, we have skyrocketing energy prices. We have a crisis in the Middle East. We have more unemployment than we did four years ago.
“Am I better off now than four years ago?”
No. I am not.
Let’s see, income tax, sales tax, property tax, gasoline tax, auto registration fees, license plate fees, village sticker fee, and tolls.
I AM paying for the roads.
But will you be better off after four years of Kerry?