3 ms·

Yummyfajitas said it quite nicely, but permit me to say it on my own behalf. I am not at all saying do not spend my tax dollars on things that don't directly b

Yummyfajitas said it quite nicely, but permit me to say it on my own behalf. I am not at all saying do not spend my tax dollars on things that don't directly benefit me. I said that we should not spend it on things like art and literature until after we have taken care of things like basic education, infrastructure, law enforcement, and yes even universal healthcare and gaurunteed access to sufficient food. I am a great lover of America and I think (with perhaps some admitted bias) that it is a truly great country. But I know kids on my own block that can barely read and I pass by a homeless shelter with large crowds outside it on my way to work, and there is an active police officer sitting behind me in law school class because he doesn't make enough to support his family comfortably. I strongly object to spending tax money on art and literature until long after those issues are fixed. And no, throwing money at those issues won't fix them, but it would be a start. Money is not sufficient for a solution, but I suspect it is necessary (or at least highly helpful).

yequalsx 16y ago
It sounds like you have the attitude of the government just providing the basics. I've taught you to read to go read what you want. But without access to a decent library, without training on how to appreciate literature it seems that your point of view is to utilitarian. The arts enrich us all in ways that can't be counted merely by monetary utility. I would like to live in a society that recognizes this and is willing to support it. It's not like it would cost a great deal or that the money could not come out of the budgets of other government agencies. It doesn't have to mean an additional expense.
- cageface 16y ago
  Maybe my experience wasn't typical, but my liberal arts classes in college were a joke. They were crowded, hurried, narrowly focused, and taught by professors that didn't seem to have the time or the inclination to provoke the students into new ways of thinking at all. I suppose it's different at schools that can afford to staff these classes at 1:15 student teacher ratios with good teachers but the money that was spent on making me a "well rounded" student would have gone a lot further if I'd just been given a pile of books to read and some time at a quiet desk.
JabavuAdams 16y ago
Ok, I read too much into your comment, so I apologize for the "selfish" remark. I've composed a few half-responses, but I'm wrestling with what I'm trying to articulate. I think what it comes down to is that the issues you cite will never be fully fixed. Second, but more importantly, the amount of money required to support cultural projects is tiny compared to, say, infrastructure upgrades. So, I object to the idea that we can't do any of that (with tax dollars) until these other things are done. In reality, if we adopt that attitude, it'll be too easy for fear-mongers to kill any cultural project. There is the thorny issue of the government using tax dollars to fund art work that I hate, or that offends me, but one of the cultural goods I value is a tolerance of that. I.e. I don't like that, but I'm glad to live in a society that could produce it, alongside the stuff I do like.
CamperBob 16y ago
Many of the problems you name have little or nothing to do with lack of funding. You can't fix poverty by throwing money at it. At least, nobody has ever managed to do it.

yequalsx 16y ago

It sounds like you have the attitude of the government just providing the basics. I've taught you to read to go read what you want. But without access to a decent library, without training on how to appreciate literature it seems that your point of view is to utilitarian. The arts enrich us all in ways that can't be counted merely by monetary utility. I would like to live in a society that recognizes this and is willing to support it. It's not like it would cost a great deal or that the money could not come out of the budgets of other government agencies. It doesn't have to mean an additional expense.

cageface 16y ago
Maybe my experience wasn't typical, but my liberal arts classes in college were a joke. They were crowded, hurried, narrowly focused, and taught by professors that didn't seem to have the time or the inclination to provoke the students into new ways of thinking at all. I suppose it's different at schools that can afford to staff these classes at 1:15 student teacher ratios with good teachers but the money that was spent on making me a "well rounded" student would have gone a lot further if I'd just been given a pile of books to read and some time at a quiet desk.

JabavuAdams 16y ago

Ok, I read too much into your comment, so I apologize for the "selfish" remark. I've composed a few half-responses, but I'm wrestling with what I'm trying to articulate. I think what it comes down to is that the issues you cite will never be fully fixed. Second, but more importantly, the amount of money required to support cultural projects is tiny compared to, say, infrastructure upgrades. So, I object to the idea that we can't do any of that (with tax dollars) until these other things are done. In reality, if we adopt that attitude, it'll be too easy for fear-mongers to kill any cultural project. There is the thorny issue of the government using tax dollars to fund art work that I hate, or that offends me, but one of the cultural goods I value is a tolerance of that. I.e. I don't like that, but I'm glad to live in a society that could produce it, alongside the stuff I do like.

CamperBob 16y ago

Many of the problems you name have little or nothing to do with lack of funding. You can't fix poverty by throwing money at it. At least, nobody has ever managed to do it.