Originally posted by dryhumpSpot on!! No one is preventing these people from writing cowboy poetry nor holding a festival for it. The reall question is, can they do so and turn a profit?
I'll wade in here. I wonder, if the festival benefits so many businesses, why can't these businesses promote it out of their pockets? Afterall, someone in a different part of the state (or nation if it is funded federally as the OP indicates) is deriving very little economic benefit from funding this. I don't think it's right for taxpayers to pay for promo ...[text shortened]... one business (or a group of businesses) over others, then you are making a value judgement.
Originally posted by dryhumpWell, if you're saying that you believe that economic benefits and outcomes - from say tourism, in this case - should be exactly the same for everybody, then I think you should oppose a state government promoting or stimulating economic activity within its state.
Afterall, someone in a different part of the state (or nation if it is funded federally as the OP indicates) is deriving very little economic benefit from funding this.
Originally posted by FMFI know, how about another stimulus plan? 😕
Well, if you're saying that you believe that economic benefits and outcomes - from say tourism, in this case - should be exactly the same for everybody, then I think you should oppose a state government promoting or stimulating economic activity within its state.
Originally posted by whodeyI don't dispute the fact that cuts need to be made. My hypothesis all along has been that spending that stimulates - say - tourism in - say - Nevada - and therefore economic activity and opportunity - if it is the case - then that sounds like something legitimate and something that should not be cut when businesses are hurting. If the Nevada Festival funding is a subsidy that has no effect on tourism or doesn't create opportunity for local entrepreneurs, then sure, put it on the list of things that can be axed. But if it boosts economic activity then the money generated is business revenue and not some "money supply" from a government.
It's really a question of believing or not that government spending needs to be curbed. Any government spending can be argued to be "needed". In fact, any government cuts will be met with people screaming in the streets demanding that their money supply be returned. The real question becomes, can the US federal government continue with massive deficits as ...[text shortened]... re is no choice but to make cuts and I dare say that Cowboy poetry should be the first to go.
Originally posted by FMFYou have come to the same conclusion that I have, which is why I don't support government stimulating the economy.
Well, if you're saying that you believe that economic benefits and outcomes - from say tourism, in this case - should be exactly the same for everybody, then I think you should oppose a state government promoting or stimulating economic activity within its state.
Originally posted by dryhumpNo, I don't think we do agree. I believe that a regional government does have a legitimate role promoting the economic interests of its region and that these efforts - especially if they involve some significant spending - need to be measured against the economic activity and opportunity that it can be seen to have given rise to. I don't think the possible unevenness of that economic benefit across the region in question should preclude the government from facilitating homegrown business where, when and if it can. I don't think I have come to the same conclusion as you at all.
You have come to the same conclusion that I have, which is why I don't support government stimulating the economy.
Originally posted by FMFI only meant you had followed my argument to the logical conclusion. I was pretty sure we didn't agree.
No, I don't think we do agree. I believe that a regional government does have a legitimate role promoting the economic interests of its region and that these efforts - especially if they involve some significant spending - need to be measured against the economic activity and opportunity that it can be seen to have given rise to. I don't think the possible uneve ...[text shortened]... ss where, when and if it can. I don't think I have come to the same conclusion as you at all.
Originally posted by FMFIt's finally dawned, what sparked FMF up, you see the connection, people being forced to fund an art venue for the debasement known as "Puppetry of the Penis" and a phrase we see often enough finding it's way into his posts i.e. 'willy waving', A psycologist would have a field day with this:
Well some people don't want so much spent on defence contracts and military adventures. And, my word, I'm pretty sure that money forked out on missiles dwarfs arts spending by something with 4 or 5 extra-zeroes-on-the-end.
I wonder how many flimsy businesses have gone by the wayside - victims of 'wrong', as you put it - because of the taxes that were spent o ...[text shortened]... ious tax evasion/opt-out thing that you seem to want but seem not to want to explain.
Puppetry of the penis > willy waving.
Willy waving > puppetry of the penis.
In the light of day, a frustrated closet flasher who can now gloat 'Haha, I made you pay for a willy waving venue haha, everyone shall pay for the willy waving haha."
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaA bit contrived/belaboured, as gags go, but worth a 😀 nevertheless.
It's finally dawned, what sparked FMF up, you see the connection, people being forced to fund an art venue for the debasement known as "Puppetry of the Penis" and a phrase we see often enough finding it's way into his posts i.e. 'willy waving', A psycologist would have a field day with this:
Puppetry of the penis > willy waving.
Willy waving > puppetry de you pay for a willy waving venue haha, everyone shall pay for the willy waving haha."
Originally posted by Hugh GlassDon't know. Do you know? We've been having a discussion about a state government promoting economic interests v the state endorsing selected aspects of culture at dissenting taxpayers' expense. The Nevada Festival was just the starting point. If it is - in fact - a waste of money, with no discernible knock on effect for local business, then let us know.
Cowboy poetry and tourism,, really? How may people are attending these events?
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFNo. By in large they have a miserable track record. Obama said that his stimulus plan would create "X" number of jobs, but then had to recant when those jobs were not created. To save face he then said that the stimulus saved "X" amount of jobs. How in the world do you prove such a claim? Then they loaned money to the banks and then complained that the banks did not handle the money like they wanted to help stimulate the economy. Then some trillion dollars later it hits them, we suck!!! However, they continue. Now they want to take "X" amount of dollars from the federal government in the hopes that the people of Nevada can make "X" number of dollars. My guess is that the money going in will not equal the money going out via taxs just like in the other examples.
You don't think a state government has a legitimate role promoting the economic interests of its state?
Originally posted by FMFYou don't dispute that cuts need to be made? How about social security? How about Medicaid? My guess is that if you can't cut cowboy poetry subsidies, you will not find it within yourself to cut the other expenses.
I don't dispute the fact that cuts need to be made. My hypothesis all along has been that spending that stimulates - say - tourism in - say - Nevada - and therefore economic activity and opportunity - if it is the case - then that sounds like something legitimate and something that should not be cut when businesses are hurting. If the Nevada Festival funding is ...[text shortened]... then the money generated is business revenue and not some "money supply" from a government.