Posted on 09/17/2005 7:46:04 AM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March
OK fellow FReepers. Here's the perfect time to eliminate National Endowment for the Arts.
Is 'Pisschrist' more important than the people of NOLA? Bush said we need cuts to pay for NOLA rebuilding, and I can't think of a more frivolous and sickening waste of tax money than the NEA. Two birds with one stone. Tempt the left fall on their swords to say that the Corpus Christi play and fisting photos are more important than the victims of Katrina.
What do you say, my fellow FReepers?
As a FReeper said to me once when I needed it, "Lighten up, Francis." The discussion here is only partly funding for the arts -- the whole picture is reducing spending to help NOLA, and the context is Dubya's announcement that there would need to be spending cuts to do so.
Call it "using this disaster to propagate your agenda" if you want, but -- unlike Cindy Sheehan and Bush bashers -- it's within the context of a worthy mission stated by our President: to pay for NOLA relief by cutting taxes. This discussion stems from that, and if you ask me, it is an ideally appropriate platform for propatating an agenda to get rid of the Nat'l Endowment for the Arts. Even though "we're still counting our dead," as you say, this disaster is a perfect illustration of exactly the kind of thing that's needed. Personally, I don't find that "low" at all.
Handling one or more of those groups, some celeb could really clean up by saying:
"Perhaps you should turn to the private sector, folks. Wouldn't you feel ashamed if the tax money you soak up takes away from people who are truly in need?"
Great suggestion.
People have been saying this for a long time.
Also the very high salaries of academics need to be constrained, and all the variuous ways the taxpayer funds the Left. Many many more ways than are generally known.
But nobody has come up with a detailed plan, such as --- what committees or congresscritters control this funding?
How to let them know about taxpayer displeasure?
I guess we are waiting for an expose in the form of a book?
Bump!
Sorry, man, it just doesn't pass the smell test. I think if we start seeing letters to the editor calling for funding cuts on any politically charged issue (arts, foreign aid) due to Katrina, it'll look awful for us.
"How to let them know about taxpayer displeasure? I guess we are waiting for an expose in the form of a book?"
I have a tough suggestion: lasso a paycut vow out of 2006 candidates. If spending is not cut outside of NOLA rebuilding efforts and the war on terror, congress pay checks AND staffing budgets would be automatically reduced. If congress can't find a way to cut wages of government workers, their own pay checks and staff budgets should be slashed.
People absolutely love the thought of cutting a senator's paycheck. And even more motivated would be the staffers, who would gleefully find ways to keep their own pay checks safe if endangered. The staffers are the real key. They know the ins-and-outs better and are less bogged down with fundraising, events, etc. Cobbling the two together would unite the congress members with the staffers in a common cause.
And the public would be yanking at the leash to slash them for the slightest excuse, so much so that this may not work as we might plan it to.
"I think if we start seeing letters to the editor calling for funding cuts on any politically charged issue (arts, foreign aid) due to Katrina, it'll look awful for us."
I don't think the beltway has a clue how unpopular the NEA is, after people hear how it's been misused. The smell test is on the other foot, especially when we need money for NOLA.
I'll even make a bet to any GOP cowards out there. If one brave congress member is given a quiet green light to launch a trial baloon on this, they can always leave that member high and dry and wash their hands of it. But in the end, whoever leads the charge on this will SHINE.
Walking on eggs doesn't pass the smell test and is a sure way of getting nowhere. For once, we've got a enormously legitimate platform from which to demand axing wasteful programs like the Endowment for the Arts, and with true moral justification -- it doesn't get any better than this. The NOLA disaster is an immediate, striking illustration of how tax dollars SHOULD be better spent. You worry that it "will look awful for us," but on the contrary, this disaster DOES look awful for those who think money spent for the arts is worthwhile.
Most important: Any individual or group that decides what action to take solely on the basis of what others will think, is controlled by others.
"I mean really, if your children were hungry would you give them art?"
Only in Dante's Inferno.
"Could you pass the salt?"
"Mom, what is that bullwhip doing there?"
"Hurry up and eat it. I'm losing my appetite looking at it."
"...on the contrary, this disaster DOES look awful for those who think money spent for the arts is worthwhile..."
Well said. It's more their problem than our's. Why bail them from their own folly? FRegards....
Many ACLU legal bills are in fact picked up by the taxpayer. How come there is no limit to the legal gouging charges going to these dirtballs?
bttt!
Mr. Silverback, can we have your ping lists here?
>>>>We're still counting our dead and you feel that now is the time to discuss funding for the arts??
It is discussing funding for the arts.
It is discussing DEfunding for the arts.
We need money to recover from this disaster.
This arts is a line item to be looked at to reallocate funding :)
There was a couple of threads yesterday about the poor animals that are still stranded.
I think this is the perfect time for PETA to justify there status too.
If they want to hold their accountability as a 'nonprofit', they should sending funding and personal to assist in the rescue of these animals.
That would be another useless funding cut that could be made :)
Giving this thought, it is important to, I think, when invoking NOLA, to differentiate regarding civil suit funding by tax payers. Who really wants their tax money to pay for atheist minucia lawsuits?
I think it would be safe to strictly limit funding right here-and-now, short term, on tax funding for civil rights cases. No more Tax funding of atheist rights, sodomy rights, illegal alien rights, terrorist rights, and criminal rights until the rebuilding of NOLA is complete.
I see a good foundation for a plan development right here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1486367/posts?page=19#19
Getting monies to those in need would look bad?
I think not.
bttt
PETA is an interesting case. I think it would be really kool of PETA if they suggested a temporary cut in EPA spending to help get funds for NOLA, to admit that people are important too.
And it would also raise PETA's worldwide respect to demand that floodgates be installed there next time around, despite the environmentalist lawsuit, not only for the sake of human life but for the sake of animal life, which is endangered by floods just as much as people are, if not more so.
>>>And it would also raise PETA's worldwide respect to demand that floodgates be installed there next time around, despite the environmentalist lawsuit, not only for the sake of human life but for the sake of animal life, which is endangered by floods just as much as people are, if not more so.
Worldwide respect? Let's not get too excited :))
But they should use their 'save the animal' money to GO SAVE THE ANIMALS from Katrina.
Pose it to justify their existence.
Otherwise LINE ITEM CUT :))
More money to allocate to NOLA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.