|
Post by Hussar on Aug 27, 2004 1:16:28 GMT -5
Really Kyron? You don't need roads. Ok, maybe, YOU personally don't need roads. Or do you? You go to the comic store and the grocery store. Well, where do you think those products in those stores come from? Magically flown in on pixie wings? No, they're brought in on the roads that taxes built. Same goes for the library.
Having lived in countries with poor roads, I can say that life grinds to a rather abrupt halt when the roads are bad. Imagine what life would be like in your town when food gets delivered once a month or maybe every two weeks because that's all that can get through. No roads also means no electricity since those power lines need to be fixed and the repair crews need vehicles and roads to get there. No roads also means no gas, natural gas, propane, or telephones in your home. Trying to say that you don't use roads is like saying that you don't use air. EVERYTHING in your house was brought to you by the infrastructure that you are saying you don't use.
Now, on the other hand, I've always wondered why people have such a bad attitude about the NEA. It's such a small drop in the bucket of the federal budget. We're talking a tiny fraction of the money spent by the government. If it makes a large number of people feel good, what is it hurting. So the air force get's one less F-16 this year. Whoopee. Cos that's the amount of money we're talking about folks. A drop in the bucket. Kinda like America's foreign aid budget.
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Sept 15, 2004 11:56:08 GMT -5
Okay, so I half-conceded a point I should have fully conceded. I need roads as much as anybody else.
I still stand by my statement that infrastructure makes a country okay, while the arts make a country great.
Rome was great not because of roads or aqueducts or the Colliseum or Pantheon. Rome was great because of Ovid and Virgil.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Sept 15, 2004 22:08:21 GMT -5
Well, you could argue that the Colliseum is a work of art. Although the Parthenon hardly made Rome great considering it's in Athens. ;D But, I get your point. Art is certainly a very necessary thing for culture. Without culture there is nothing tying a nation together. People, as a general rule, will not care terribly about economics. People will, however, do all sorts of illogical and downright stupid things, as well as great and fantastic things, all in the name of culture.
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Sept 22, 2004 13:09:59 GMT -5
I said Pantheon, not Parthenon. I believe that is the name of a famous building in Rome. Something like a temple for all their gods together or something. I saw a picture of it in the art class I took a few years back. Here's a llink to a picture of it. And here's some information about it. Now that I think of it such a building could be seen as a rather massive project in the arts, so maybe it is what made Rome great. I am aware that the Parthenon is in Athens, however.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Sept 23, 2004 4:03:16 GMT -5
Heehee, oops, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Sept 28, 2004 19:11:38 GMT -5
No harm done, and I bet we both had a good laugh. Sometimes I do know what I'm talking about though.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Oct 19, 2004 15:21:58 GMT -5
Why I don't like the NEA, 1. Art should be privately funded. If you want to spend money on it find but using tax money is not fine, no matter how much it is.
2. The last budget for the NEA I looked at most of the money was used in only 6 cities, four of them in New York.
Just wanted to see how far off the subject things got.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 20, 2004 0:03:43 GMT -5
Considering the NEA is pretty much like American foreign aid spending - chump change, I don't see why you really care. If you want your govy to stop wasting huge amounts of money, howzabout some of the bigger stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Oct 20, 2004 13:34:30 GMT -5
Oh I could make a few cuts here and there. The first would be getting rid of both NEA's
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 21, 2004 1:14:36 GMT -5
Hmm, the govy spends more money on the military than the next 15 countries combined, but for some reason, doesn't have enough cash to make sure that the troops have bullets. And you're worried about someone stealing pocket change for making pretty pictures. Hmmm, priorities...
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Oct 21, 2004 16:05:33 GMT -5
Hmm still listening to the left news. Who was it that voted for the war but not the funds to supply the troops,
Lets see who was that,,,,,,,,KERRY.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 22, 2004 6:12:38 GMT -5
Ah ah ah. Â You don't get to play that card. Kerry ain't the president. Kerry is just a senator. Just like the other senators. What he did or didn't vote for has no bearing on this issue. If or when he becomes president, then it's an issue. Who sets the budget for the US? The President Who is the President of the US? George W Bush If money is being mispent or if there isn't enogh money, whose fault is it? I'll let you answer that one. I missed ya Gal. Smacking around Republicans that cannot look at an issue without partisan politics is fun. Â
|
|
|
Post by Challenger on Oct 22, 2004 7:37:20 GMT -5
Senators are a waste of space anyway
If a single one actual read the bills they passed they might have a purpose but as it stands they are useless.
Its kinda nice to find that someone actualy has a section of government which makes the House of Commons look good.
Challenger
|
|