• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should The National Endowment For The Arts (NEA) Be Abolished?

Should We Abolish The NEA?

  • Yes, replace it with nothing.

    Votes: 20 35.7%

  • Yes, privatize it.

    Votes: 7 12.5%

  • Yes, localize it and let the states handle it.

    Votes: 4 7.1%

  • No, keep it.

    Votes: 17 30.4%

  • No, but it needs strong reforms.

    Votes: 5 8.9%

  • Other

    Votes: 3 5.4%
  • Total voters
    56
LagerHead said:
You apparently don't know much about libertarians or libertarianism. Libertarians object to any government program that picks winners and losers and subsidizing practically anything. To say that we object to one specific program shows that you don't know anything about what we stand for.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of what you stand for. It's a pointless ideology that looks good on paper but doesn't make a bit of sense when it comes to real world application. Just like communism. Looks great on paper...
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
The federal government is supposed to be limited, but the "general welfare" is an unlimited statement. That is a contradiction.

Actually, the federal government has specific powers, which are described as being for the general welfare.
Click to expand...

no, the article states "AND provide for the general welfare".

As long as the power is not delegated to another branch or to the the States by the 10th Amendment, any program or expenditure that falls under the concern of the government for the health, peace, morality and safety of its citizens is left to the Congress. United States v Butler decided that one.
 
Personally, my opinion is the federal government should not be spending taxpayer's money on such things. There are plenty of well to do folks who love the arts and can fund their local art scenes. It would also eliminate the controversies that arise when the NEA ends up funding some goofy piece of shock art that's entire purpose seems to be to offend vast swaths of the nation.

I will say, one issue I have with a lot folks who rail against the NEA (and NPR, and foreign aid, and a few other programs that are traditionally whipping boys of the fiscal right) is that the NEA is soooooooo small in scope of the federal budget. Would cutting it help reduce the deficit. Sure, in the same sense that me removing a cup of water from the ocean would make it "smaller". Or me ordering a McDonald's value meal and because I decided not to dip one of my fries in ketchup declaring that to be a diet. If you're serious about fiscal conservatism, then you have to recognize that the NEA isn't worth the political capital it would take to cut it. There's always a ruckus stirred up over it every few years (usually an election year) so various politicians can show what "staunch fiscal conservatives" they are despite offering no meaningful solutions to our fiscal issues.

Its just red meat for red voters, nothing more. Hell, the GOP would probably secretly be disappointed if the NEA got cut. They'd lose one of their best whipping boys.
 
John Mays Lives said:
I'm well aware of what you stand for. It's a pointless ideology that looks good on paper but doesn't make a bit of sense when it comes to real world application. Just like communism. Looks great on paper...
Click to expand...

Your ignorance is duly noted. Thanks for playing.
 
John Mays Lives said:
no, the article states "AND provide for the general welfare".

As long as the power is not delegated to another branch or to the the States by the 10th Amendment, any program or expenditure that falls under the concern of the government for the health, peace, morality and safety of its citizens is left to the Congress. United States v Butler decided that one.
Click to expand...

There is no limits to such a "general welfare" power. Anything can be passed by Congress under such a description. Thus, it renders the enumerated powers doctrine and the 10th amendment useless. That is why it is used in a preamble-like phrase.

It was decided in 1787 what it means. I have no interest in what a packed court said in 1936. Courts are secondary sources, not primary sources, and are as politically motivated as any other entity in government.
 
Psychoclown said:
Personally, my opinion is the federal government should not be spending taxpayer's money on such things. There are plenty of well to do folks who love the arts and can fund their local art scenes. It would also eliminate the controversies that arise when the NEA ends up funding some goofy piece of shock art that's entire purpose seems to be to offend vast swaths of the nation.

I will say, one issue I have with a lot folks who rail against the NEA (and NPR, and foreign aid, and a few other programs that are traditionally whipping boys of the fiscal right) is that the NEA is soooooooo small in scope of the federal budget. Would cutting it help reduce the deficit. Sure, in the same sense that me removing a cup of water from the ocean would make it "smaller". Or me ordering a McDonald's value meal and because I decided not to dip one of my fries in ketchup declaring that to be a diet. If you're serious about fiscal conservatism, then you have to recognize that the NEA isn't worth the political capital it would take to cut it. There's always a ruckus stirred up over it every few years (usually an election year) so various politicians can show what "staunch fiscal conservatives" they are despite offering no meaningful solutions to our fiscal issues.

Its just red meat for red voters, nothing more. Hell, the GOP would probably secretly be disappointed if the NEA got cut. They'd lose one of their best whipping boys.
Click to expand...

Those programs are "whipping boys" not because of their size, but because of their absurdity.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
There is no limits to such a "general welfare" power. Anything can be passed by Congress under such a description. Thus, it renders the enumerated powers doctrine and the 10th amendment useless. That is why it is used in a preamble-like phrase.

It was decided in 1787 what it means. I have no interest in what a packed court said in 1936. Courts are secondary sources, not primary sources, and are as politically motivated as any other entity in government.
Click to expand...

Actually it was not decided. And the "packed court" in 1936 decided in your favor concerning the program in question. The reasoning for the ruling, however, determined how broad or limited the general welfare clause is.

And the courts are the designated authorities for interpretation of Constitutional questions. It is one of the three branches and has that delegated power, despite much gnashing of teeth. You cannot negate its rulings just because they are inconvenient to your argument.
 
Lakeside said:
I find art offensive. Just like some people find The Nativity offensive. Since some places ban Nativity scenes we should ban all art.
Click to expand...

Because you find it offensive?
 
DA60 said:
1) He said nothing about NASA.

2) why don't you ask him what he thinks about a subject (NASA) before you (virtually) put words in his mouth on it?
Click to expand...

I was giving an example of something we dumped for financial reasons that gave people inspiration.
 
DA60 said:
So?

No one is going to drop dead if some wunderkind painter goes unrecognized.

Besides, how many of the masses give a rat's buttocks about painting's? Almost none.

If the public are so desperate for a NEA, they can fund it themselves...through private/corporate donations.

And if not enough do, then the bloody thing should die.

This notion that the government should take hard-working, taxpayer's dollars to fund artistic endeavours that the vast majority do not care in the slightest about is ridiculous, IMO.
Click to expand...


The NEA costs about $125 million dollars in tax payer money. Is this such a big fish to fry? Shouldn't we focus our attention on things that actually cause a budget deficit, like I dunno, the Military Industrial Complex.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
Is it best to have government based on limited functions like protecting people, or one based on funding whatever people like (redistribution)?

I find the reduction of individual preference to be very uninspiring. And there is something to be said for forcibly taking as little money from people as possible.

(As for NASA, I would keep the military component and dump the fantasy component. Private industry is stepping up in that area anyway.)
Click to expand...


There is something to be said about taking as little amount possible. The NEA takes approx $125 million dollars in taxes each year to fund, and the number of taxpayers in the US is around 130 million. Comes out to $0.96 a year per person.

I think there is something valuable that the NEA provides and without the government there to fund it, it would never get $125 million in funding.

As far as private industry stepping up, I would just have to say that I will believe it when they get us back to the moon, or to mars. There seems to be a lot of effort in that aspect, but saying and doing are two different things.
 
OnWisconsin said:
The NEA costs about $125 million dollars in tax payer money. Is this such a big fish to fry? Shouldn't we focus our attention on things that actually cause a budget deficit, like I dunno, the Military Industrial Complex.
Click to expand...

I am all for slashing the military budget in 1/2...right now.

But using the excuse that the NEA is 'only' $125 million is just that, an excuse...no offense.

Waste is waste.

And surely, if Americans want the NEA SO MUCH, then they can finance it privately/corporately.
 
John Mays Lives said:
Congress has the power to provide for "general welfare". There's also nothing in the Constitution that specifically enumerates a good number of programs but, for some reason, conservatives and libertarians seem to get their panties in a twist over that one program specifically.
Click to expand...

General Welfare” was never intended as a catch-all to excuse the federal government illegally usurping any power that the Constitution does not otherwise grant it. If it meant what you think it means, then the Tenth Amendment could not have any meaning.
 
eohrnberger said:
Once a society stops supporting the arts, isn't that one of the signs that it's in a downward spiral?
Click to expand...

Surely, a much more ominous sign of such a downward spiral would be a society that tolerates—and even defends—its own government blatantly violating the highest laws on which that society is based—for example, allowing its highest levels of government to claim powers and authorities that the Constitution does not allow it.
 
OnWisconsin said:
The NEA costs about $125 million dollars in tax payer money. Is this such a big fish to fry? Shouldn't we focus our attention on things that actually cause a budget deficit, like I dunno, the Military Industrial Complex.
Click to expand...

The federal government does not have the legitimate authority to waste so much as a single cent of taxpayer money on this. I reject your argument that, in this case, stealing is OK because it's not as big as some other instances of stealing.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Surely, a much more ominous sign of such a downward spiral would be a society that tolerates—and even defends—its own government blatantly violating the highest laws on which that society is based—for example, allowing its highest levels of government to claim powers and authorities that the Constitution does not allow it.
Click to expand...

The Constitution isn't a laundry list of specific enumerated powers. While there are many that are enumerated, there is no prohibition on the Federal Government doing anything that isn't specifically handed over to the states or prohibited by the Bill of Rights.

The Butler decision was based on that legal tenet. What was decided in the Butler decision as far as eliminating an agricultural program was based on the fact that it was already a power given to the States so the Fed had overstepped. It's sort of the litmus test now.
 
John Mays Lives said:
The Constitution isn't a laundry list of specific enumerated powers.
Click to expand...

It is that, actually. It's a bit more than that, but in terms of powers of each branch of government, they are exhaustively and specifically listed for each branch.
 
John Mays Lives said:
The Constitution isn't a laundry list of specific enumerated powers. While there are many that are enumerated, there is no prohibition on the Federal Government doing anything that isn't specifically handed over to the states or prohibited by the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

Yes, there absolutely is. It's called The Tenth Amendment.
 
JayDubya said:
It is that, actually. It's a bit more than that, but in terms of powers of each branch of government, they are exhaustively and specifically listed for each branch.
Click to expand...

It is not an exhaustive list by any stretch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom