• 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
John Mays Lives said:
And it does not prohibit the NEA or any other program the Fed introduces so long as it doesn't overstep the rights of the state.
Click to expand...

It states that any powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people. This means that only the states or the people have these powers. It does not mean that the federal government may exercise these powers too, as long as it doesn't interfere with the states doing so. It means that the federal government may not exercise these powers.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
It states that any powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people. This means that only the states or the people have these powers. It does not mean that the federal government may exercise these powers too, as long as it doesn't interfere with the states doing so. It means that the federal government may not exercise these powers.
Click to expand...

The Butler decision disagrees with you. The general welfare clause covers this issue.
 
John Mays Lives said:
It is not an exhaustive list by any stretch.
Click to expand...

You only think it's “not exhaustive” because you want the federal government to have powers that the Constitution does not delegate to it.

It is exhaustive. All of the powers that the federal government legitimate has are explicitly listed in the Constitution. That it does not list the powers that you think the federal government should have is not a flaw in the Constitution, but rather the point of it.

madison.jpg
 
John Mays Lives said:
The Butler decision disagrees with you. The general welfare clause covers this issue.
Click to expand...

I'm not swayed by the opinions of corrupt judges who willfully violate their oaths of office in order to pervert the Constitution into allowing what it clearly was intended to prohibit.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
You only think it's “not exhaustive” because you want the federal government to have powers that the Constitution does not delegate to it.

It is exhaustive. All of the powers that the federal government legitimate has are explicitly listed in the Constitution. That it does not list the powers that you think the federal government should have is not a flaw in the Constitution, but rather the point of it.

View attachment 67173311
Click to expand...

The Butler decision disagrees with you. Love the cartoon but it doesn't bolster a sound argument.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I'm not swayed by the opinions of corrupt judges
Click to expand...

I stopped right there. That told me all I need to know about your disrespect for our Constitution, that you clearly have not read the Butler decision so you cannot comment on it from a place of knowledge and that you disregard what is inconvenient to your preconceived notions.

In effect, you are an idealogue and nothing more.
 
It should be abolished. It has had decades to reform. It is more about making offensive political statements then funding art.
 
John Mays Lives said:
I stopped right there. That told me all I need to know about your disrespect for our Constitution, that you clearly have not read the Butler decision so you cannot comment on it from a place of knowledge and that you disregard what is inconvenient to your preconceived notions.

In effect, you are an idealogue and nothing more.
Click to expand...

The authority of the Constitution is not in what a corrupt politician can twist it to mean, but in what it clearly says without any such twisting.

Any time a judge rules that the Constitution does not say what it very clearly does say, then I am completely in the right in denouncing that judge as corrupt, and his opinion as incorrect.
 
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...

Indeed. Further more, there are a number of other signs that are rather troubling.
"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within. The essential causes of Rome's decline lay in her people, her morals, her class struggle, her failing trade, her bureaucratic despotism, her stifling taxes, her consuming wars" -- historian Will Durant in "Caesar and Christ" (1944).
Click to expand...
 
Bob Blaylock said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you think that a modern society can survive without spending money on anything other than its own defense? Please, for once go into detail on how you think this society would work/thrive? Somalia has a libertarian paradise, they only spend money on defense. Tell me, would you live in somalia?
 
OnWisconsin said:
So you think that a modern society can survive without spending money on anything other than its own defense? Please, for once go into detail on how you think this society would work/thrive? Somalia has a libertarian paradise, they only spend money on defense. Tell me, would you live in somalia?
Click to expand...

Most extreme conservatives and libertarians fail to realize their ideologies would create a Randian nightmare of a society.
 
OnWisconsin said:
So you think that a modern society can survive without spending money on anything other than its own defense? Please, for once go into detail on how you think this society would work/thrive? Somalia has a libertarian paradise, they only spend money on defense. Tell me, would you live in somalia?
Click to expand...

qasa5ahu.jpg
 
John Mays Lives said:
Most extreme conservatives and libertarians fail to realize their ideologies would create a Randian nightmare of a society.
Click to expand...

How odd it is that our society has deteriorated to the point where it is considered “extreme” to think that this nation's Constitution means what it says, and that government is obligated to obey it; while thinking that government should be free to disregard and disobey the Constitution with impunity is not “extreme”.
 
John Mays Lives said:
Actually, it is the very definition of our society failing to support cultural achievement and advancement. Great art is one of the signs of a great culture.
Click to expand...

This cannot be supported with facts unless you define societal support only as public funds. The vast amount of art produced is privately funded.
 
John Mays Lives said:
Most extreme conservatives and libertarians fail to realize their ideologies would create a Randian nightmare of a society.
Click to expand...

As much as I would like to,mi don't know that I can disagree with you. But we have never experienced extreme conservatism and are not separating from extreme conservatism or libertarianism. So,,while your statement carries truth with it, there appears to be no application.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
Those programs are "whipping boys" not because of their size, but because of their absurdity.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm all for making the cuts, but I also realize the amount of time we spend debating programs like these would be faaaaaar better spent debating the real fiscal issues that plague this country. It would take significant political capital to eliminate the NEA or the NPR. I'd rather that capital be used to make budget changes that would actually have an impact. The fact is the GOP uses issues like this to appear to be fiscal conservatives because they want to cut a handful of miniscule programs, while they refuse to address the big three debt drivers known as Social Security, Medicare, and military spending.

And if the GOP is serious about cutting them, then how come the first six years of the Bush II administration when we had a Republican president and a Republican congress, they weren't eliminated? They're more valuable to the GOP as ways to rile up fiscal conservatives without ever having to actually be fiscally conservative. I'll admit, I used to fall for it, but I've since wised up.
 
John Mays Lives said:
Actually, it is the very definition of our society failing to support cultural achievement and advancement. Great art is one of the signs of a great culture.
Click to expand...

Was there no great art produced in this country before 1965? Society can support and encourage great art and other cultural achievements without government being involved. And usually can do it much more efficiently and effectively.
 
One man's art is another mans porn and vice versa. Art is necessary, I mean sometimes it can be stupid or pornagraphic etc. All that is subjective though. Art can also inspire and move people.

If 100 peices of crap are funded to find one diamond in the rough that may inspire or bring great joy to someone is worth it. We need more beauty in the world, not less. Sometimes however you have to wade through what you consider trash to get there.
 
Black Dog said:
One man's art is another mans porn and vice versa. Art is necessary, I mean sometimes it can be stupid or pornagraphic etc. All that is subjective though. Art can also inspire and move people.

If 100 peices of crap are funded to find one diamond in the rough that may inspire or bring great joy to someone is worth it. We need more beauty in the world, not less. Sometimes however you have to wade through what you consider trash to get there.
Click to expand...


I live in a town full of folks who support the arts. I think a lot of what they drool over is ridiculous, but I actually agree with you. What I disagree with, and it is something you only implied is, that the federal government should fund the efforts to arrive at what one finds beautiful.
 
R-C said:
I live in a town full of folks who support the arts. I think a lot of what they drool over is ridiculous, but I actually agree with you. What I disagree with, and it is something you only implied is, that the federal government should fund the efforts to arrive at what one finds beautiful.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with the government funding something as useful as the arts... Be it music, painting and dance etc. Art is as important as any science or athletic programs. The arts are a far to often ignored aspects of our society. I think the government spending on it is fine. Better that than wasting money studying the mating rituals of the mongolian snail.
 
You have again found common ground in that wasteful spending is wasteful no matter whether the object is labeled as art or science. But my primary beef isn't with the arts. The original question was about the NEA and whether it should continue. My primary objection is founded upon the reality that funding of the arts is not a thing the federal gov't has authority to do. There is a great deal of this going around, but little to none can be justified. Should the govt be funding the study of mating rituals? I think not. So I don't see moral equivalency, I see govt immorality which reaches broadly with funding of the NEA being one outlet which was never intended to be open.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom