1. You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

NPR fires Juan Williams

Discussion in 'World News & Politics' started by bleedinorange, Oct 21, 2010.

  1. ScooberJake

    ScooberJake Deputy

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,869
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Our government does a lot of things that I don't agree with, and I'm required to support those things. Do I like it? No. But I realize that in a democracy, I don't always get my way. Sometimes my tax dollars go to things I disagree with. That's just the way it is.

    And your first sentence is misleading. In the past the arts were not supported by the government, but for hundreds of years they have been supported by wealthy patrons. The Esterhazy family didn't just buy tickets to hear Haydn's concerts. They paid him to sit around and write music. They paid him to perform it for other people. Because they realized it had value. So did, more recently, the Carnegies.

    But times have changed. Rock stars and athletes don't support the arts. And for some reason the industrialists of our time typically don't either. So the people of the United States at some point decided that they collectively value music, dance, poetry, etc. and would like to see them continue. We don't want our society to be void of those things. So we decided to put a tiny tiny fraction of our tax dollars toward them.

    Now, people certainly have the right to disagree with that stance. They have the right to think that classical music and ballet and theater are worthless and unnecessary for modern life. But no one should act like it is a travesty or unconstitutional that they are supported by the government. To me, the NEA (at least what the NEA should be) is an example of exactly why democracy is great. None of us can fund a symphony on our own. But we take something that we collectively value and we put a bit of our collective resources towards it to see it thrive. And then we get to hear Mozart in the park.
  2. RoVerto Solo

    Banned RoVerto Solo Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2007
    Messages:
    14,529
    Location:
    Oklahoma City
  3. docjoctoo

    docjoctoo Cowboy

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    2,617
    Location:
    Oklahoma City
    Just like in the past I think the arts should be supported by "wealthy patrons"
    or anyone else who want to support the arts. That is the way it was and that is the way it still is best done. I encourage private individuals to support the arts. But I do not believe that it is the duty of the federal government to do so. The federal government is trillions of dollars in debt. We are broke. We do not have any extra money laying around. You owe at least $42,000 this year plus interest. It will go up to $47,000 next year. If you want to support the arts go ahead but pay you debt to Uncle Sam first.
  4. Cimarron

    Cimarron It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2007
    Messages:
    41,178
    My guess is that people spend more on arts than at any time in history through their purchases of art to decorate their homes, entertainment, music, etc.
  5. ScooberJake

    ScooberJake Deputy

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,869
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    I'm not saying it is the "duty" of the government to support it. We have a government "of the people". We are the people. If we, the voters, collectively decide that we want to spend our money on that, then we do. Duty has nothing to do with it.

    Yes, I know how much I owe. And we can cut all funding to arts in this country and my tab goes from $42,000 down to something like $41,999.36. I don't think that is a worthwhile cut. It makes basically no impact on the debt, but will have a significant impact on the arts and culture of our country.

    You seem to be really into the idea of "wealthy patrons" supporting the arts instead of tax dollars. To me that says you want others to pay for it rather than you. And although you say you value the arts, what I hear you saying is that the government should cut them off and if no rich people step up then the arts die and, "oh well". Is that correct?
  6. RxCowboy

    A/V Subscriber RxCowboy Has no Rx for his orange obsession.

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,083
    Location:
    Wishing I was in Stillwater
    This is the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals see a government of unlimited power that can give them any goodies they want. Conservatives see a government that is limited in power by the Constitution and that has over-extended its power.

    How on earth does art exist without the government? How did it exist before the federal government funded it? Oh, deary, dear, the world will come crashing down if the government doesn't fund art?

    We have to start somewhere. As we've already established there isn't a single jot or tittle that empowers the federal government to be an art patron. So that's a good place to start, along with NPR. If it is so important to you then you fund it.
  7. zachya

    A/V Subscriber zachya Hero of Spielburg

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Messages:
    12,361
    Location:
    Tarna
    ...could very well be there isn't the visible patronage of the arts because the gov't does it for people now...they no longer feel the need to engage in the patronage themselves*...





    *pure hypothesizing on my part...
  8. bleedinorange

    bleedinorange Wrangler

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    8,036
    Location:
    Staring death in the face
    I suspect you are right. The same factors that have changed the work ethic in our country (entitlements) would logically apply to other areas of our collective behavior. It's back to "why buy the cow when you can get the milk free" mentality.
  9. docjoctoo

    docjoctoo Cowboy

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    2,617
    Location:
    Oklahoma City

    I doubt that you or many of us know how much we owe....the $42,000 per person does not stay that way...it goes up to $47,000 next year...and then up and up from there. City governments owe an average of $13,000 per person in the US. And that does not include state governments. For example Oklahoma by law must balance their budget costs, but that does not cover the massive unfunded promised teacher retirement in the future. Teachers are underpaid now. Where is that money going to come from in the future?

    Arts are great and I urge greater support for the arts, but only from private funds. To send a dollar to the Federal Government and get back 80 cents because of administrative costs does not seem a very good deal to me.

    The US now has massive debt funded largely by foreign countries. How much longer will they fund our countries mismanagement and waste that many have identified at the federal level?
  10. ScooberJake

    ScooberJake Deputy

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,869
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Typical message board fail. When you can't make a decent point, just oversimplify the other side until it sounds idiotic. This does not add to the discussion.

    Yes, we do. And as I've already suggested, cutting the NEA and NPR does not even come close to being a significant first step. If you would like to continue to argue your party line without actually paying attention to the discussion, I suppose you are welcome to.
  11. ScooberJake

    ScooberJake Deputy

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,869
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Uh-huh. And earlier you told me how much I owe. So do we know or do we not know? You can't even stick to your story for two posts in a row. If you'd like to actually think about this and come up with some rational thoughts, get back to me.
  12. StillwaterTownie

    StillwaterTownie Wrangler

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    7,863
    Location:
    Where else but Stillwater
    But city voters bring debt upon themselves by voting YES on a new police station, new public library, new school, huge new arena, etc. So if you hear Oklahoma Citians complain about long term local debt, ask if they have been voting for the MAPS projects.

    Or if in Stillwater, ask if they voted yes for the wonderful police station, surely one of the biggest and finest in the state of Oklahoma and later for the huge new multi level county jail, another costly local government gem. Yea, for making government bigger!
  13. RxCowboy

    A/V Subscriber RxCowboy Has no Rx for his orange obsession.

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,083
    Location:
    Wishing I was in Stillwater
    Uh-huh. And what you wrote above was what?

    And you're going to continue the party line "it's only a couple of hundred million so we might as well spend it." At this point, any first step in controlling spending would be significant.
  14. ScooberJake

    ScooberJake Deputy

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,869
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    No (again it seems you aren't paying attention). I believe that it is money well spent. Certainly more well spent than a good portion of our national defense money. (I work for a defense contractor, so I see the waste that happens first hand.)
  15. Epperley28

    A/V Subscriber Epperley28 Cowboy

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    Messages:
    10,580
    I don't believe the government should be requiring me to support abstinance programs or unjustified invasions of other countries, but here we all are, paying for programs we detest. Was it Franklin who said, "The only things that are certain are death and taxes"? Add one more thing to that list, that the government is going to spend some of that cash in ways we don't all support.

    BTW, the National Endowment for the Arts started in 1965, so unless you're over 90 the arts have been enjoying government support for the majority of your life.
  16. RxCowboy

    A/V Subscriber RxCowboy Has no Rx for his orange obsession.

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,083
    Location:
    Wishing I was in Stillwater
    I simply disagree that it is money well spent. It is money that our government has no business spending in the first place because, as we've established, there isn't a jot or tittle that empowers the government to be an art patron. While there is no doubt waste in our national defense budget, the federal government is certainly empowered to provide for national defense. We all benefit from national defense. We do not all benefit from the NEA.

    Or aren't you paying attention?

    How did art exist prior to 1965?????
  17. okstateguy987

    okstateguy987 Teamo Supremo

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    12,899
    we do not live in a democracy.
  18. RxCowboy

    A/V Subscriber RxCowboy Has no Rx for his orange obsession.

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,083
    Location:
    Wishing I was in Stillwater
    Just to make sure we're straight, you don't support any defense spending?
  19. Epperley28

    A/V Subscriber Epperley28 Cowboy

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    Messages:
    10,580
    I don't support massive waste on defense projects. I'd bet the ratio works about pretty well in wasted funds. The NEA probably blows about 1/3,309th of the amount of money on bad or offensive artworks that the DoD wastes on failed projects every year. Just a guess.
  20. RxCowboy

    A/V Subscriber RxCowboy Has no Rx for his orange obsession.

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,083
    Location:
    Wishing I was in Stillwater
    Of course. None of us support waste on defense projects or anything else. But we agree that defense is necessary. The NEA isn't. Art existed prior to 1965 and would continue to exist if the NEA was defunded entirely.

    So, we're back to the standard liberal argument, "It's only a couple hundred million so we might as well spend it." Which is hogwash. If we're going to start cutting, then cutting a small sum of unnecessary spending is an easy way to start.

Share This Page