It’s immaterial. You wouldn’t notice a difference in your tax bill either way.
This is the kind of smokescreen that conservatives love pump out, as though it were actually relevant to the budget discussion. In fact, the problem for conservatives is that these fora for public education end up actually making the public a little smarter and more secular, taking up time that might otherwise be used for reading the Bible or Ayn Rand.
Whoa, relax Doug. No one is disagreeing that the public cost for these things is basically nil - and most museums, and public TV are supported mostly through donations anyway. My gripe is the principle of the thing.
Also, I don’t know if it’s correct to say they make the public more secular or smart; it’s more likely that the already secular and smart of society, will be attracted to these fora.
Meh, I disagree. Art galleries, museums and public broadcasting only really appeal to “nerds” and the elderly.
Those people can pay out of pocket.
Wow, I am disappointed and disheartened by this position. Art galleries, and museums are wonderful places of learning. Public broadcasting gives you a view of the world found no where else. This doesn’t diminish because you don’t find these things worthwhile. It just means you are missing out.
Meh, I disagree. Art galleries, museums and public broadcasting only really appeal to “nerds” and the elderly.
Those people can pay out of pocket.
Wow, I am disappointed and disheartened by this position. Art galleries, and museums are wonderful places of learning. Public broadcasting gives you a view of the world found no where else. This doesn’t diminish because you don’t find these things worthwhile. It just means you are missing out.
Yes, galleries, museums, public broadcasting should exist - and it’s good they do; they add to many people’s lives.
I just hate the idea of paying any amount for them!
Meh, I disagree. Art galleries, museums and public broadcasting only really appeal to “nerds” and the elderly.
Those people can pay out of pocket.
Wow, I am disappointed and disheartened by this position. Art galleries, and museums are wonderful places of learning. Public broadcasting gives you a view of the world found no where else. This doesn’t diminish because you don’t find these things worthwhile. It just means you are missing out.
Yes, galleries, museums, public broadcasting should exist - and it’s good they do; they add to many people’s lives.
I just hate the idea of paying any amount for them!
Do you agree with the concept of National Parks? To me, they are treasures.
Meh, I disagree. Art galleries, museums and public broadcasting only really appeal to “nerds” and the elderly.
Those people can pay out of pocket.
Wow, I am disappointed and disheartened by this position. Art galleries, and museums are wonderful places of learning. Public broadcasting gives you a view of the world found no where else. This doesn’t diminish because you don’t find these things worthwhile. It just means you are missing out.
Yes, galleries, museums, public broadcasting should exist - and it’s good they do; they add to many people’s lives.
I just hate the idea of paying any amount for them!
Do you agree with the concept of National Parks? To me, they are treasures.
Oy, I am somewhat embarrassed to admit, I’m not very familiar with them.
But some national parks - I’m thinking Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, seem definitely worth funding, because they are magnificent to look at.
But some national parks - I’m thinking Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, seem definitely worth funding, because they are magnificent to look at.
Great! Now what’s the difference between that and funding (at basically de minimus amounts) museums and public TV that put things magnificent to look at (and hear, and learn about) within reach of even more people?
But some national parks - I’m thinking Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, seem definitely worth funding, because they are magnificent to look at.
Great! Now what’s the difference between that and funding (at basically de minimus amounts) museums and public TV that put things magnificent to look at (and hear, and learn about) within reach of even more people?
But some national parks - I’m thinking Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, seem definitely worth funding, because they are magnificent to look at.
Great! Now what’s the difference between that and funding (at basically de minimus amounts) museums and public TV that put things magnificent to look at (and hear, and learn about) within reach of even more people?
IDK, it’s just my opinion.
You seem to be reaching over the top here Doug, I’m aware these fora are relatively free to the taxpayer and enjoyable to some, and I’m aware how a democracy works - I simply don’t like it. I accept it though.
I think there’s a legitimate question about what counts as stuff “in the public interest”, and at what amounts those things should be funded. E.g., I don’t think pro sports should be funded by the government. Sports is basically brainless entertainment that is all too easily self-funding. (Material for fitness and exercise might be a different matter—another reason for public and national parks). OTOH history, science, nature, and arguably some “cultural” (arts) stuff is worth funding, because of their educational value. Same reason the government should help fund public libraries. Without these kinds of free or relatively inexpensive educational opportunities, motivated but underprivileged citizens will be unable to learn and better themselves. Even Andrew Carnegie realized that.
Actually the article is more about tax subidies to the upper middle class and wealthy, than funding of sports and the arts.
Gary’s right and instead of arguing about the institutions that mean much in our lives we should be focusing on ways to raise revenues to sustain them. IMO sports arenas have the same “bread and circuses” value as they did when the Romans created them and I’ll leave it at that. Not a sports fan but many friends and family are, so what. Now on to the lunch pin of the tax issue: carried interest. This is the one tax loophole for the extremely wealthy that, if closed could earn us $21billion in ten years. This is going to be the next major tax fight in Congress and the reps. are already digging in for a fight with Boehner declaring a “line in the sand” on this issue. We"ll see how the 113 Congress handles this hot potato, which if Obama is successful will cap his career.
Sports is basically brainless entertainment that is all too easily self-funding. (Material for fitness and exercise might be a different matter—another reason for public and national parks).
Hard to argue with this!
But, talking about sports being brainless entertainment gets very close to elitism.
Whoa, relax Doug. No one is disagreeing that the public cost for these things is basically nil - and most museums, and public TV are supported mostly through donations anyway. My gripe is the principle of the thing.
Art galleries, and museums are wonderful places of learning. Public broadcasting gives you a view of the world found no where else. This doesn’t diminish because you don’t find these things worthwhile. It just means you are missing out.
