Smoot Point Really Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 To get an opera up and on its feet requires dozens if not hundreds of people and there is always spillover effect via restaurants, caterers, etc. It's actually not far fetched at all.The list I gave is a minimal list of people you need to put a theatrical show of the quality that would qualify for a NEA grant. Please go down the NEA grant list and provide examples that support your argument... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Please go down the NEA grant list and provide examples that support your argument... $20,000 To support the second annual Hip-Hop Generation Next. The full-day block party at Coffey Park in Red Hook, Brooklyn, will feature a variety of hip-hop artists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcoles11 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Basically, the GOP in general is doing the right thing by questioning the questionable aspects of this "stimulus" bill...but they are coming up short with viable alternatives that will actually make a difference. The payroll tax cut is a great example used in the article. Talk about instant stimulus...putting extra cash into everyone's pocket twice a week (at least those still on a payroll) Thats the problem. A payroll tax cut just isn't enough because there are way too many people that are under and flat out unemployed. If you lost your job and are now working 3 **** at Wal-Mart, that payroll tax isn't going to come close to getting your income back to level you once had and of course if you're not working at all you certainly aren't going to be helped by a payroll tax cut. Job have got be created for this economy to turn around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 To get an opera up and on its feet requires dozens if not hundreds of people and there is always spillover effect via restaurants, caterers, etc. It's actually not far fetched at all.The list I gave is a minimal list of people you need to put a theatrical show of the quality that would qualify for a NEA grant. But, does the money come with any guarantees that it won't be used for, say, salary bonuses? Does it state that it must be used to hire that opera singer? Or can it be spent on any damn frivolous thing the recipient chooses to? Like, high priced New York hookers. You seem to accept the best case scenario, while opponents go straight for worse case scenarios. We'll be lucky if it's somewhere in the middle. However, middle to worse case, is still a waste of money. Only your best case scenario would even make it worth considering. Just doesn't sound very realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 But, does the money come with any guarantees that it won't be used for, say, salary bonuses? Does it state that it must be used to hire that opera singer? Or can it be spent on any damn frivolous thing the recipient chooses to? Like, high priced New York hookers.You seem to accept the best case scenario, while opponents go straight for worse case scenarios. We'll be lucky if it's somewhere in the middle. However, middle to worse case, is still a waste of money. Only your best case scenario would even make it worth considering. Just doesn't sound very realistic. You've obviously never tried to put on a show. What I presented wasn't the best case scenario, but sort of a middle of the road one. The sad reality is very few shows make money even the very successful ones. That's why almost all theatres in America are run as non profits. It takes too many people, too much time, and too much money. Still, in my mind the arts play a very useful role in society in terms of reflection, innovation, and catharsis. Now, if you are asking should we fund a local opera company, symphony, or a promising green energy start up, university, or a bridge to nowhere... we'll have several different conversations, but there is no doubt in my mind that arts funding not only provides jobs, but creates a community economic ripple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 http://www.newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=fff3278f-1d5c-4c86-abc1-a821e742ea06David Frum If we’re to make progress in 2010, we have to look serious. This week we looked not only irrelevant, but clueless and silly. Quite a job for a little mouse. We only looked irrelevant by the agenda of the previous administration. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoot Point Really Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 $20,000To support the second annual Hip-Hop Generation Next. The full-day block party at Coffey Park in Red Hook, Brooklyn, will feature a variety of hip-hop artists. Again... Why can't the people who go to the full-day block party actually contribute to paying for the block party they are attending? You'd probably create more "stimulus" throwing 20K in singles down Brooklyn toilets, giving the plumbers and their suppliers something to do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLockesGhost Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Now, if you hire that opera singer, you are also hiring a director, carpentar, painters, set designer, lighting designer, techs, artistic director, cast, orchestra, conductor, musical director, choreographer, stage manager, prop manager, computer programmer, audio tech, engineers, make-up artists, costumer, costume designer, and you are making the theatre buy lumber, clothes, props, and any number of assorted goodies from the community. More, when the show goes up many will want to go to a restaurant before the show or for drinks after.Funding that one opera singer winds up employing hundreds. Do you also believe in perpetual motion? Do you believe that the economy is frictionless and that once the government gives a dollar to the opera singer, that dollar then flows through the economy without resistance? And that all the economy needs is a big push from the government and that machine will go on indefinitely on its own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Not quite perpetual motion, but I believe an object in motion tends to stay in motion longer. That is sometimes you need to exert force to break inertia and once that ball gets rolling (hopefully downhill) it may go for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 You've obviously never tried to put on a show. No, I haven't. My main premise is that I'm not convinced the money will just be spent to hire the opera singer, and therefore, all the accompanying hands to put on the show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Again... Why can't the people who go to the full-day block party actually contribute to paying for the block party they are attending?You'd probably create more "stimulus" throwing 20K in singles down Brooklyn toilets, giving the plumbers and their suppliers something to do... They can and sometimes they do, but a one day block party often takes months to organize, between the entertainment, equipment, stage, talent, permits, administration, and a bunch of things I'm not thinking of like safety, first aid, security, etc. That one day block party takes a lot to organize and get going. Now, you could ask should these parties exist? Do they serve a purpose to the community? I go back and forth on that one. They certainly can be inspiring, diverting, and fun. It can bring people together and raise the morale of a community and lower the temperature (anger) as well. So, I think that one day event has value, but a one day event can take several months or a year to get right. I know there is an entire staff devoted to nothing but the National Book Festival for example. So for an entire work year, they develop, organize and arrange a free weekend on the Mall. Is that valuable or a waste. Probably both, but it is a celebration of the American mind and our literary accomplishments and that's worth a few pennies to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 No, I haven't.My main premise is that I'm not convinced the money will just be spent to hire the opera singer, and therefore, all the accompanying hands to put on the show. In terms of grants, you have to use the money as stipulated in the grant and prove that you used the money in the budget you presented. There's not very much wiggle room as to how the money can be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLockesGhost Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Not quite perpetual motion, but I believe an object in motion tends to stay in motion longer. a) In an ideal world with no friction, you'd be right. But stuff breaks. It takes constant work to keep the economy moving. That is sometimes you need to exert force to break inertia and once that ball gets rolling (hopefully downhill) it may go for a while. Who's exerting this initial force? The government I assume. Where does the government gets it's energy? It saps it from the economy. So please don't argue that the government can give a push to the economy as if it were God, with it's own separate energy source. The government can give nothing to the economy it hasn't taken from it in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 a) In an ideal world with no friction, you'd be right. But stuff breaks. It takes constant work to keep the economy moving. Who's exerting this initial force? The government I assume. Where does the government gets it's energy? It saps it from the economy. So please don't argue that the government can give a push to the economy as if it were God, with it's own separate energy source. The government can give nothing to the economy it hasn't taken from it in the first place. In this instance the government is providing the push, but that initial push theoretically could come from anywhere. A grassroots effort, a corporation, an angel (individual sponsor). Right now, many of the expected sources of "push" have ground to a halt. I really don't disagree with you that the government's push isn't taking away from other internal resources or will have a cost, perhaps a greater detrimental cost down the road. However, sometimes when I'm sick I have to give myself that push to get work done anyway. That push may cost me extra days in recovering from the flu, heck it could do me in, but I sometimes I need to strain my internal resources to get things or keep things moving. I also agree that one push won't keep a sucker moving forever, but sometimes (switching metaphors) if you do give that chick a shove out of the nest it can fly on its own for a long time. (Mind you, dealing with this mess on a purely abstract level is far more palatable. We are postponing a lot of pain. Then again, postponing pain is partly what got us into this mess.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 No. Not sure where you got that from the article, that's not his point. He is against the stimulus plan and against the $30 million to spend for Westlands restoration. oh, right..I figured the author was against the stimulus. My sarcastic post was more toward the left on this, or Pelosi really. Here's one for you. This stimulus was so important that one senator flew back to DC on Friday evening so he could be the 60th vote...then Obama leaves DC for a weekend get away in Chicago...HE STILL HASN"T SIGNED THE BILL...(unless he has done so in the last couple hours.) so, guess it wasn't so damn important??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 Back to Michael Steele... The stimulus plan is good at creating work, not jobs... That means that when the stimulus runs out, the contract/job runs out... Either you have to create another stimulus or you face the political consequences. A true stimulus would be supporting areas of the economy that are self-sustaining... Like dropping corporate tax-rate to 0? Helps the economy, serves as a tax-cut to everyone (since cost of goods and services go down), and encourages companies to do business inside the United States.... The only downside would be some corporate accountants may have to find new work. It's a risk we all take when choosing a profession. Well, if people have work for the next 2-3 years and the economy is able to crawl out of the recession during that time, then by the time this "work" is over jobs might actually be available. Right? Why is work for 2 years so bad? I think a lot of people would love that, and I think a lot of economists think that the economy will be heading out of the recession at that time. So can't this act as a bridge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 oh, right..I figured the author was against the stimulus. My sarcastic post was more toward the left on this, or Pelosi really. Here's one for you. This stimulus was so important that one senator flew back to DC on Friday evening so he could be the 60th vote...then Obama leaves DC for a weekend get away in Chicago...HE STILL HASN"T SIGNED THE BILL...(unless he has done so in the last couple hours.) so, guess it wasn't so damn important??? I agree, I have said that they should have waited 48 hours to vote on it. It is a shame. I would love for there to be a law that requires 48 hours before a vote on all legislation (with very few exceptions). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chump Bailey Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 There are IMO some good things in this bill too with regard to education credits, COBRA extensions etc... I like Obama, but I am definitely wary of Pelosi, Reid, Jackson-Lee, Durbin and Schumer - very much so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Let's say the mouse got the full 30 million. That's .004% of a 750 Billion dollar stimulus package. If that's the very worst they can think of to justify their unified no votes then they are idiots, especially so since the entire mouse money controversy was made up in the first place. Not quite perpetual motion, but I believe an object in motion tends to stay in motion longer. That is sometimes you need to exert force to break inertia and once that ball gets rolling (hopefully downhill) it may go for a while. I think the general tone of the GOP is commical. Basically they are pinning their entire future on promoting Hoover's legacy over FDR's new deal. Claiming FDR, argueble the most popular and greatest President in the history of the country, actually wasn't that good. And parodoxically Hoover, one of the worst Presidents was actually the architect of FDR's new deal, which by the way didn't actually work ?!?? Yeah, Rots of Ruck with that message. Rotts of Ruck with selling the fiscal responsibility message in objection to 750 billion stimulus package too. Create a unified front and opose it... They did the same thing in 1933 when FDR first came to power and it lead to two decades of Democratic rule. Took a non partisan War Hero like IKE to bring them back to power and even then he dramatically changed the face of the party adopting as many FDR policies as round filled. Until the GOP actually gets a fact based outlook on the world, rather than one based on partisan dogma, they are destened to go the way of the wolley mamoth, or the Isolationist conservatives of yester year. Objecting to 728 billion of stimulus because of fiscal responsibility is the biggest joke on the planet. Where was their objection when Bush spent 750 Billion on bail outs for the banks? Or when Bush ran up a 5 trillion dollar debt and doubled the national debt when in power for his entire eight years!!!.... Now they're fiscal conservatives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Again... Why can't the people who go to the full-day block party actually contribute to paying for the block party they are attending?You'd probably create more "stimulus" throwing 20K in singles down Brooklyn toilets, giving the plumbers and their suppliers something to do... well in this case you get a stimulative benefit and a cultural one, better than a bunch of clogged toilets but whatever floats your boat I guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 How much of this stimulus plan promotes manufacturing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoot Point Really Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I think the general tone of the GOP is commical. Basically they are pinning their entire future on promoting Hoover's legacy over FDR's new deal. Claiming FDR, argueble the most popular and greatest President in the history of the country, actually wasn't that good. And parodoxically Hoover, one of the worst Presidents was actually the architect of FDR's new deal, which by the way didn't actually work ?!? Who is promoting Hoover? I haven't seen anyone do that... I think you are creating a straw man here... Criticism of the New Deal has gone on for years... it isn't a new thing. The criticism of the New Deal isn't exclusive to Republicans either. Heck, Krugman thinks it was a failure because it didn't go far enough! It isn't comical... It's what the Republicans SHOULD have been doing all along: standing against Government wasteful spending and decreasing the burden on individuals and future generations. Republicans spent the last 8 years buying political capital by selling off their principles... Now they aren't in power, and it's time to get back their principles. Those principles are good for the country... That debate is very good for the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoot Point Really Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 How much of this stimulus plan promotes manufacturing? A maximum of $101B, but $72B has already been spent according to US Budget Watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I don't know how to stimulate the economy, but I think the article is pretty much right on. It's amazing to me how even far right republicans in the house and senate admit that "this is not Obama's plan, its Pelosi's" and agree with Obama when he says "its not perfect, but its a good start." Republicans, especially those in the House, are simply not willing to compromise, at all, apparently. The idea that bi-partisan means they get everything they want and the democrats get everything they want is flawed. They have to realize that it means neither party gets everything they want. Obama didn't get everything he wanted. In the end, Pelosi didn't get everything she wanted. Yet, the dems signed off on it. Republicans need to learn what bi-partisanship really is, and then maybe with help from everyone, the economy really will turn around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Can someone please explain to me, politically, what the GOP has to gain by "going along" with President Obama? Look what happened to the Dems in the 2002 midterms when they "went along" with Bush on Iraq. They got annahiliated and lost the senate and house seats. First time a President in God knows how long gained seats for his party in a midterm So do tell, why should the Republicans take any responsibility for flawed legislation when they are 100 percent out of power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.