Note: Only responses from the participants should be posted here. The first round question is:

 

Using our tax dollars, Local, State, and National governments support the arts through grants, public art projects, and other expenditures. With rising government debt, is this a good use of tax dollars, who should decide what projects get funding, and under what criteria?

While the Federal funding for the National Endowment for the Arts has, in recent years, been a hot button issue for the Right, it has never really caused a buzz for me. However, I’m not in favor of any Federal tax that funds a program that the States or private citizens are perfectly capable of handling themselves. The Founders never intended the Federal Government to pay for so much or be so big.

Programs like the national Endowment for the Arts and Public Broadcasting should be voted on and funded at the State level or better yet funded solely by private dollars.

The less we have of these types of programs, the more private money there would be to fund them. Also, with more private money come more oversight and less corruption and waste. Most taxpayers don’t care where their money goes as long as they’re getting their piece – roads are paved, military well armed, etc. But, people that voluntarily send their money to an organization pay more attention to where that money goes. Organizations like the Red Cross and United Way constantly have a magnifying glass on where they earmark donations. Government programs should as well and until we make these government programs private we will continue to see the waste and our taxes will continue to rise as these organizations become larger and more numerous.

Would you be willing to have a portion of your earnings at work taken away because a United Way in Grand Rapids, Michigan, wanted to paint a mural on the side of a wall? Now here is another question, would you be willing to have a portion of your earnings at work taken away in order to improve your child’s schooling or improve the roads you drive on? If our tax dollars were to be used on projects supporting the arts, it would be yet another case of unnecessary spending by our government. These “pork projects” are hitting America by storm. For example, in Alaska, there is a debate going on surrounding what has come to be known as “the bridge to nowhere”. It is a $200 million project that would build a bridge stretching from Ketchikan, Alaska (pop. 14,500) to Gravina Island (pop. 50). Is this what you want our government spending your hard earned money on?

Why do the arts need to be supported more by the government? Is it not enough to require every student in the country to take an art class every year from first through eighth grade? Is it not enough to be required to have two credits of art in high school? Is it not enough to have many art elective courses, and often times display their artwork in the hall? Why isn’t my Pre-Calculus test posted in the hallway for everyone to see? Shouldn’t my English paper that I aced be put in a display case by the front door of the school? That fact is our nations public schools provide students with more than enough opportunities in the arts. Our nation’s tax dollars need to be spent in more productive ways. An example of this would be improving roadways. Improving the roads of America will benefit almost everyone. As the philosopher Jeremy Bentham preached, we must engage in the actions that provide the greatest good for the greatest number. Improving roadways makes driving and commuting easier for the average American as well as opening up jobs in construction for those who are in need of work. Now compare this idea to the offered plan of aiding the arts. Who is benefited from this? Perhaps the answer is the select few who participate in the artistic programs, so why would this be beneficial to our nation? Because I agree with Jeremy Bentham’s idea of the greatest good for the greatest number, I believe that our tax dollars should be spent on programs that benefit the most Americans, not measly art expenditures.

You repeatedly point out that there are required art classes in high school and ask if this is not enough. These programs are funded by government money. Is that OK with you? Should we continue to fund public school art programs, including art, band, choir and home-ec classes? Or should we only fund "educational" classes?

Edited January 24, 200620 yr by mreye

You repeatedly point out that there are required art classes in high school and ask if this is not enough. These programs are funded by government money. Is that OK with you? Should we continue to fund public school art programs, including art, band, choir and home-ec classes? Or should we only fund "educational" classes?

I do not have a problem with the government funding art classes in public schools, as long as all areas of study are funded equally and the arts are not favored. Often times, students in these art classes (band, art, ect.) are charged extra fees to help pay for the class. This is the way it should be, and it should not be altered.

 

Our country's constitution is based on equality, so yes, we should continue to fund public school's art programs. This funding should be more than enough, and nothing more should be put into the arts. As was stated earlier, the individual who is participating in the arts program should have to pay a fee, just as the young boys of America have to pay to play Little League baseball.

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

Also, with more private money come more oversight and less corruption and waste.

 

Do you not believe that if more money was put into the hands of "private America" (aka you and me) then people would just put the money into savings?

Do you not believe that if more money was put into the hands of "private America" (aka you and me) then people would just put the money into savings?

 

Yes, I believe that people will save more, but they will also give more. I have no statistics to back this up other than to say that's how I do it. In my personal life when I come upon some unexpected extra money (poker winnings, etc) I put some of it away, yes. But, I also give more to my church that Sunday. I know that when I'm in a position to give, I give more.

 

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Would you have a problem with government funding of the arts if the artist or group of artists receiving the grant were required to donate either some time to community service or a piece of artwork to a state / county park or building?

 

Likewise, would this work for other organizations that receive funding through tax dollars?

Bump

Yes, I believe that people will save more, but they will also give more. I have no statistics to back this up other than to say that's how I do it. In my personal life when I come upon some unexpected extra money (poker winnings, etc) I put some of it away, yes. But, I also give more to my church that Sunday. I know that when I'm in a position to give, I give more.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Would you have a problem with government funding of the arts if the artist or group of artists receiving the grant were required to donate either some time to community service or a piece of artwork to a state / county park or building?

 

Likewise, would this work for other organizations that receive funding through tax dollars?

First of all, I am sorry for taking so long to resopnd. Comcast was having troubles and my internet has been down since Tuesday night.

 

And now, a rebuttle to your answer. If the money was put into the government's hands, it would not be stashed away. You agreed that some of the money put into the average person's hands would be saved. I believe that if that money is put into the government's hands and used on things such as improving the roads or schools, everyone will benefit, not just the person who would recieve the money. As I stated earlier, Society > Individual.

 

Yes, I would have a problem with the government funding the arts to do community service. The idea of community service is to volunteer (or be a punishment), not to be funded to give your time.

 

I am having troubles understanding your second question. Are you asking if it is okay for organizations that are funded through tax dollars to be required to give community service? If so, no because it is community service and once again I believe that community service should be voluntary. If not voluntary, then it is a punishment, and if the organization did no wrong, they should not have to do community service.

You agreed that some of the money put into the average person's hands would be saved. I believe that if that money is put into the government's hands and used on things such as improving the roads or schools, everyone will benefit, not just the person who would recieve the money. As I stated earlier, Society > Individual.

 

Society > Individual?

 

We shouldn't get any money back? Government should keep our paycheck and take care of roads, etc and then give us what we need? Isn't that Communism? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like that's what you're advocating. Could you elaborate?

Society > Individual?

 

We shouldn't get any money back? Government should keep our paycheck and take care of roads, etc and then give us what we need? Isn't that Communism? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like that's what you're advocating. Could you elaborate?

Am I communist? Whattt? Definitely not. What I am saying is that I believe in the philosophy of Jeremy Bentham that teaches how we must do what benefits society more than it does the individual. To further elaborate, I am a believer in John Maynard Keynes---Keynesian Economics---which says that government spending will stimulate an economy. This was the tactic that FDR used in the 1930's to help get America out of the Great Depression. If Keynesian Economics helped get us out of the greatest economic disaster in our nation's history, then it must be pretty damn good. I did not say we shouldn't get any money back. We are debating whether the government should fund the arts or not, and I say no the arts do not need to be funded, and instead we should use the money for government spending to stimulate the economy. And yes, I still believe that society > individual. Without a stable society, the individual would not exist.

I think we got a little off base here with where we both feel this "extra" money should be spent. You believe the government should keep it and use it to better society as a whole. I believe government wastes too much of our money already and any "extra' cash is better spent in the hands of ordinary Americans.

As far as the National Endowment of the Arts goes, I understand the benefits of art and culture in out Nation's youths. However, I also feel that programs like these are better suited to be funded privately and independently. This would thwart any controversy over offensive art displays, while saving some tax dollars that can be better spent on other projects or given back to the tax payers.

To wrap things up, I will now give my closing statements.

 

Do I think the government should spend extra money coming from tax dollars on funding the arts? No. I agree with my opponent that the government wastes too much money on programs and projects that are not needed, as I stated in my opening speech with the example of "The Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska. Funding the arts would be yet another one of these pork projects. Instead, we should use the money we would have used on the pork projects and fund programs and projects that will help everyone in the nation. My example of this would be to improve the roadways because doing this improves the roads, reduces stress, and creates jobs in construction and production for many Americans. I am not saying that our nation should enforce more taxes upon its people, I am giving an alternative plan to what is currently being needlessly done. Thank you.

After careful deliberations, the Judges, and posters have selected mreye as winner. Round two will begin as soon as the final debate has completed.