Thats every bureaucracy’s way fighting against budget cuts. If you take this, we’ll have to cut X (without regard for A through W) because X will incite public outcry. Of course no one is willing to forgo a raise or heaven forbid a cut in a great benefits package- They’re going to fuck the most vulnerable first!
5 Likes
Wait, it isn’t black and white??
Mind = blown
2 Likes
And of feeding chum to the faithful.
Everyone knows that these cuts are “HELL YEAH! He’s taking it too to “them”!” cuts…that do very little to stem the growing red-ink of the United States.
Social Security and Entitlements. If you don’t tackle these, then you are just “pissing in the Ocean” as my Granddad used to say…
4 Likes
Nah. They’re mostly brownish.
Did I ever mention the Swiss Puerto Rican? That was crazy. Dude looked like Richard Gere, but he was totally puerto rican. I mean, spitting image of the guy like 20 years ago. Turns out his parents were from Switzerland.
I bet there are people like that in Mexico too.
Eh, yeah, and no, I think. I think it’s a mis-characterization that he’s just feeding sacred cow to the hilbillies.
It’s one of those ever contentious questions. Most people want a fiscally responsible government, but don’t want their pet cause to fall under the ax.
So where do you begin? Military spending? He’s screwing the troops!
Social security- He’s attacking old people!
For every entitlement there is a special interest group that will yelp and a bureaucracy that will defend its own expenses- no matter how ridiculous.
5 Likes
No lord ever wants their fiefdom to shrink.
1 Like
Pattern recognition can lead us to what is generally true.
Though I’m sure the existence of mugsy bogues makes the statement tall people are better than short people at basketball grey, and not black and white for people who can’t grasp this concept .
SkyzykS:
“Feeding chum to the faithful”…especially during the early days in office…is something every new President appears to do (Clinton seems to come to mind for me…but I am sure President “X” (including Reagan) to Obama did the same thing.
Trump most certainly is.
Like when Clinton raised energy taxes and taxes on SS benefits in 1993?
I don’t remember the specifics nor the term…I just remember the thought coming to my mind that he is “rewarding” the base.
Ok, then lets look at it this way- What allocations are necessary and what is chum? The way to really ingratiate yourself is to put some money in peoples pockets. One of Bushs moves was to start funding faith based programs (literally throwing chum to the faithful). I’m sure there are lots of civilian/military contractors and suppliers breathing a sigh of relief too.
So yeah- When I see the way that is phrased with regard to budget cuts I figure lets call a spade a spade. The “hell yeah” crowd are people that are sick of seeing a growing difference between their gross and their net, not a bunch of yahoos that just want to lynch a bureaucrat. The real chum is money, and the real faithful are the ones that stand to benefit from having a republican in office.
Or give the impression that you are sticking it to someone else.
It all works politically.
EVERY new President appears to do this.
There was not even a suggestion on my part that Trump was the only one to do this.
My wife and I have been discussing this a lot lately. She’s an opera singer, and another of the “causes” that is on the chopping block is the National Endowment for the Arts, which has drawn much fire from her circle of friends.
What we’ve been discussing (since her friends are, predictably, pretty hard-left-leaning) is that just because a program is on the chopping block doesn’t necessarily mean that the government / leader “hates” that cause or program. The questions ought to be “Does society benefit from this government program?” and “Is it necessary to send federal government dollars in that direction?”
Would I like to see public support for the arts? Of course. Besides the feeling of wokeness about my cultural sensitivity, my wife makes her bones in that field, so more cash in the arts = good for us. But is that “the hill I would choose to die on” when it comes to budgetary issues? No. I’ll just accept that the arts have to survive through better marketing, more philanthropy, etc.
BTW, stuff like this is why it’s really hard to identify specifically as a Democrat or Republican these days. On certain issues, I find the Democrat position more aligned with my personal beliefs; on others, I’m with the Republicans; and on many, I dislike both parties!
5 Likes
Which is where I find myself more and more, AG.
Why on earth would anyone want the government to support the arts?
They’ll just use it as they have for a vehicle for propaganda.
Also…my point is this, AG…
I agree that cuts have to start “somewhere”…but if you are serious; they need to continue on to things that truly impact the overall Federal Budget, not just what wins you Political Points…
Specifically related to the Arts…they will most likely survive in most of the larger cities; but much like the smaller airports that are on the “chopping block”…smaller towns and cities will bear the brunt of the “sacrifice”.
1 Like
The problem you have is that balancing the budget IS a popular policy. Any means taken to achieve it (and I do mean any) will usually be politically unpopular.
People like the idea of belt-tightening more than the practice of actually tightening the belt. (I am aware that this is so obvious that it almost goes without saying)
3 Likes
Asked and answered.
Small-town opera houses will not survive. Even medium-sized-city opera houses will struggle (i.e. they might survive, but might become progressively more dependent on volunteers to fill out the chorus rather than paid professionals, and the quality of product will suffer as a result).
Whether they need to survive or should receive government support to survive is a reasonable question, but it’s not that hard to imagine “why on earth anyone would want the government to support the arts” (for most people, anyway).
As for this…
I’m not sure you know much about the “arts” then, raj.
I’ve seen four or five operas this year (some of which were put on by houses that receive support from the NEA) and, unless you consider stories like Richard the Lionheart “propaganda” - well, just crawl out of the godforsaken cave you live in and go see a damn opera.
3 Likes
[quote=“ActivitiesGuy, post:5741, topic:223365, full:true”]
Asked and answered.
Small-town opera houses will not survive. Even medium-sized-city opera houses will struggle (i.e. they might survive, but might become progressively more dependent on volunteers to fill out the chorus rather than paid professionals, and the quality of product will suffer as a result).
Whether they need to survive or should receive government support to survive is a reasonable question, but it’s not that hard to imagine “why on earth anyone would want the government to support the arts” (for most people, anyway).[/quote]
I’m not asking why the recipients of government funds would want to keep receiving money.
I am asking why art that people clearly aren’t willing to pay for personally needs to be propped up by government money?
You are taking an extremely narrow focus to make your point. Look throughout history even stretching back to kings and ancient rulers, they would fund art to fuel propaganda.
Ever heard of the film Triumph of the Will?