moonbattery logo

Mar 19 2017

Why Taxpayers Should Subsidize Entertainment for the Well-to-Do

Trump’s budget priorities have some screaming bloody murder over proposed cuts to the NEA, NPR, PBS, etc. Considering that taxpayers are overburdened and the government is up to its neck in debt, why should the federal government subsidize entertainment mainly targeted at those who are well to do? Tucker Carlson asks a moonbat, and gets moonbattery for an answer:

Unfortunately, cutting this type of funding is mainly symbolic. The real waste — the economic millstone tied around our necks that sooner or later will pull us under if we don’t get free of it — is entitlements, which only keep growing, and which no one dares address in any serious way.

Hat tip: Right Wing News.



19 Responses to “Why Taxpayers Should Subsidize Entertainment for the Well-to-Do”

  1. Tchhht!!! says:

    I must be missing something here. If the investment is such a paltry amount and the rewards are so immense, then why aren’t rich liberals clamoring to get in on this huge windfall?

  2. Occam's Stubble says:

    The real waste — the economic millstone tied around our necks that sooner or later will pull us under if we don’t get free of it — is entitlements, which only keep growing, and which no one dares address in any serious way.

    If you can’t muster the political will to cut something small, how are you ever going to cut something big?

    I have a theory as to why trying to fix Social Security is the third rail of politics: Old people, who vote in droves, get righteously offended when you try to cut the benefits they paid into all their lives to get while leaving alone bullshit like the NEA, welfare, cowboy poetry festivals, etc. Once you cut all that unnecessary nonsense, then you might be able to make the case for entitlement cuts and not sacrifice your political career in the process.

  3. Ol' Uncle Lar says:

    Excellent point!! A 10 to 1 return on “investment” ? Warren Buffett should be on that like a Somali on a Big Mac.

  4. BillPasadena says:

    My cable has hundreds of channels.
    My internet has access to multiple song playing services featuring artists of all different styles.

    Is there a shortage of arts or do some artists lack the ability to create something others are willing to pay for.

  5. StephaneDumas says:

    I saw one more video on this subject with this video from ReasonTV and I quote the description:“If the federal government were to cut off funding for public
    broadcasting, the programs that so many of us cherish not only wouldn’t
    disappear, they would have a better chance of surviving long into the
    future.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYPEn5ehrsQ

  6. AlexMcQuade says:

    “Why Taxpayers Should ***NOT*** Subsidize Entertainment for the Well-to-Do”
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2e0f4f55719e4ff69e2db549ea385d356687db7917b9d8681cc59d85ffbc3c29.jpg

  7. AlexMcQuade says:

    Trump does some good things and he does some not-so-good things. This is definitely one of the good ones !!!! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2cee6e5db059c38d5581280f45bbacf2f1fba8b3b891fc9ce18b129d784d056f.jpg

  8. Wewon Bigly says:

    Trump’s​ working on cutting Section 8 and housing stipends too. It’s clearly out of control.

    http://fortune.com/2017/03/05/trump-hud-housing-assistance/

  9. ICEvictim says:

    entitlements – YES! there is absolutely NO authorization in the Constitution allowing the federal government to forcibly take my money and gift it to someone who has done nothing to earn it. None.

    In the meantime, we do need some iconic cutting to put people’s heads into the correct mode of thinking about this. Sesame Street has been earning millions of dollars a year while paying zero of the free advertising costs they get from PBS.

  10. ICEvictim says:

    any entity that does not provide a service or a product to the federal government should be shut off.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0841ea403ebeddd063bdcf9e0564730d22bfa35534dd660e11e30095ff1b55e1.png

  11. ICEvictim says:

    bingo!
    Art is a product regardless of what “artists” try to tell us. If you product sucks, no one wants it. Forcing us to pay for junk art is a travesty.

  12. Occam's Stubble says:

    Don’t forget that stunning relief of the Virgin Mary in elephant dung.

  13. 762x51 says:

    Her explanation is the definition of redistribution.

    With friends like that, Tucker doesn’t need enemies.

  14. 762x51 says:

    How about any funding for which there is no authority in the constitution should be shut off? It’s less subjective that way.

  15. ICEvictim says:

    that’s pretty much what I was referring to. They could not buy anything on behalf of a third party or otherwise “gift” money to anyone.

  16. TED says:

    Now THAT’S entertainment!!!! http://i.imgur.com/n95ZBUI.png

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy