Thursday, March 10, 2016

Why People Support Trump

Well this is a bit better, at least you are not calling my Parent's stupid again...
Another topic idea (with a more charitable explanation of why people such as your parents might support Trump):

White working-class nostalgia, explained by John Wayne

one good word:we

and from Kevin Drum about Trump supporters:

Americans Aren't Anxious About the Economy. So What Are They Anxious About?
I get back to the cities about 2 PM Mpls time.  I can't wait. 

74 comments:

Sean said...

I guess I disagree with Drum's thesis. I think people are anxious about the economy even if their personal situation is OK at the moment, because what the events of 2007-2008 showed is that the economy can be crashed on the rocks by mischievous elites outside of the normal economic cycles. And I think most people get the sense that there hasn't been enough real reform that would prevent such a thing from happening again.

Laurie Wagner said...

while I might accept that Trump supporters could be a bit nostalgic for an idealized (less diverse) past and may be more subtly than overtly racist, it still seems to me that they are probably dumb. Have you listen to Trump speak for an extend period of time such as a campaign rally or press conference? Does he sound like someone an intelligent person would support?

(btw I do feel little bad about your parents inclusion in this group I label as dumb, but doesn't Trump sound idiotic to you? Maybe your parents are smart about other stuff but have some strange blind spot to Trump's idiocy.

Laurie Wagner said...

another reason why intelligent people don't support Trump:

Why Donald Trump's brazen lies overwhelm the press

Donald Trump's politifact file

jerrye92002 said...

I don't think Trump supporters are dumb at all. Trump is having the audacity to say what no one else will, offending the PC Nazis and liberal media at every turn. People have long wanted some Republican to get a spine and quit playing by that abominable PC-speak imposed on all of us. OK, some of us disagree with certain pressure groups being treated with lollipops and head-pats when they should be in jail or at least roundly criticized. Maybe we get so bold as to call them what they are-- illegal, or lawless, or stupid, but until Trump WE are the ones ostracized for it. And Trump is right, we have stupid people in Washington and that's a problem.

Now I don't support DT because I am firmly convinced his is a vanity candidacy, hollow on the outside, too full of himself on the inside. He offers only the most nebulous of solutions-- most of them tyrannical-- but always in the vein of putting America first, and we all know that hasn't been the case of late. He speaks in inconsistent platitudes and jibes, and has articulated no clear policy proposals (except on his website, to which he never refers). He's hard to debate because there is no substance there, and every attack based on substance he turns around as more evidence of media and establishment opposition, which fuels his support.

Anonymous said...

"...but always in the vein of putting America first."

If you think this is what we need, you should be supporting Sanders. He is the only candidate consistently putting America and Americans first...and he's been doing it for over four decades.

But I doubt you're that open-minded.

Joel

John said...

I can't believe I read the whole thing. Yes I read all those silly links.

This talk of racial animus, etc to me is so wrong. I think many in the USA want people to learn and live by these:

Hal Urban Life's Greatest Lessons

Where as Bernie would prefer to encourage everyone to see themselves as victims.

Sean said...

If you're going to claim that victimization is the basis of the Sanders campaign, the same would apply for the Trump campaign as well.

John said...

Please explain.

As far as I understand Trump's biggest points that cause friction are:
- Get the illegal aliens out of our country and keep them out.
- Don't accept refugees if there is some chance they include Islamic terrorists.
- And I assume he is against reverse discrimination.

Trump Positions
Trumps Views

John said...

More on Trump's Positions

John said...

Trump on Poverty

John said...

And no I am not in the Trump camp because I don't trust his character.

However many of these views seem pretty pragmatic and rational.

Laurie Wagner said...

so Trump's views seem pragmatic and rational- I don't think you have listened to Trump much or else you are just being obstinate. I think an Erik Black debate summary captures Trump well:

Disgraceful GOP debate exposes Trump’s health-care plan as gibberish

So I sure we have very different views regarding protestors at Trump rallies as well.

Donald Trump Says His Supporters Should 'Hit Back' At Protesters More Often

John said...

I disagree with Trump on Education, other issues and think his character is questionable at best. However I did say "many of these views seem pretty pragmatic and rational". Not ALL.

As for condoning violence at his rallies... I am not sure how I feel. I guess if someone is dumb enough to walk into a Black Lives Matter protest in a closed venue to stand there saying that the participants are a bunch of radical idiots, they are likely to be forcibly ejected.

I guess I don't see why "protestors" feel the right to go to a Trump rally and freely stand there calling him and the participants foul names? Not sure why the participants should be asked to put up with it.

John said...

Speaking of Disruptive Protestors

Now why again should any rally have to put up with this?

Anonymous said...

I think it can be hard to disagree with Trump conceptually on many issues, because he doesn't take anything close to detailed positions. Trump is for making America better. Who is against that? He wants better schools, better trade deals, better health care, better immigration laws, better all kinds of stuff. I am for better stuff too. It's only Trump's opponents, it seems, are in favor of making stuff worse.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

" I think an Erik Black debate summary captures Trump well:"-- Laurie

That is perhaps true, that Trump's "debate" style lacks clarity and detail, but I've always found that Eric Black would need to buy two vowels to find a clUE. I think he is being deliberately obtuse as to what Trump is saying, while his supposedly stupid supporters understand it just fine. Even I understand he wants to get rid of Obamacare, because anything or even nothing would be better. He says he wants to be able to sell health insurance across state lines and it is inarguable that individual state mandates limit competition and raise prices and stifle competition. He says he wants to insure that pre-existing conditions are covered, but NOT that they must be covered immediately, nor at the same prices. Before Obama, there were health insurance policies with "limited exclusions" or "high risk pools" with subsidies. Obamacare eliminated those and replaced them with unicorn poop. Trump doesn't want citizens dying in the streets, either, but we never had that before, and Obamacare didn't change it. All O'care does is REQUIRE everybody to have health insurance, but it doesn't provide a scintilla of additional health CARE. In fact, the amount of care is reduced because of the onerous provisions of O'care and its costs.

So, Trump isn't being specific enough to suit anybody. Republicans would like more detail to determine if he really understands the problem and has sensible solutions. Democrats want more detail so they can attack him for his sensible solutions. I know, I've already got the "talking points" from the DNC here in my inbox.

Sean said...

The basis of Trump's campaign is that America is "losing" -- everybody (China, Mexico, Iran, President Obama, "elites", the media) is making America the victim and that by the basis of his awesomeness we will start "winning" again.

Sean said...

"He says he wants to be able to sell health insurance across state lines and it is inarguable that individual state mandates limit competition and raise prices and stifle competition."

I thought the GOP liked states' rights?

I'm all for allowing selling health insurance across state lines just as long as if you buy some crappy policy from South Dakota or Alabama or wherever that they are on the hook for covering you if you go on Medicaid or something like that due to a health crisis that is inadequately covered.

(And of course, it should be pointed out that under the ACA states have the ability to choose to allow sales across state lines.)

Anonymous said...

That is perhaps true, that Trump's "debate" style lacks clarity and detail

And that's the problem, and points to the difficulty of response. Trump is in favor of making stuff better. Well, who isn't? The possession of good intentions isn't really much of an issue in our politics. Donald Trump's history of making things better has been to add a touch of gold leaf. While that may work for the signs posted on his casino's, that isn't an effective approach to they myriad of problems America faces.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Let me put it this way. A suspect in a murder may not have been the one to wield the weapon, but still may required to explain why his fingerprints are all over it. Republican fingerprints are all over Obamacare, but at that last moment they weren't the ones to pull the trigger. That's still something they need to explain to their supporters.

--Hiram

John said...

"America is "losing""

It seems to me that Sanders is preaching the poor me perspective. 'They have the money and you deserve a government that takes it from them and gives it to you. Whether you have done anything to deserve it or not... No matter what choices you have made in your life.'

"Victim mentality is an acquired (learned) personality trait in which a person tends to regard him or herself as a victim of the negative actions of others, and to behave like it were the case—even in the absence of clear evidence. It depends on habitual thought processes and attribution."

Whereas Trump is preaching the let's "kick ass and take names" perspective. The you have the power to stop illegals from being in our country. You have the power to stop China and other countries from doing illegal things. You have the power to stop Freeloaders at all income levels from taking advantage of the taxes you pay, Etc.

"But when you’re getting your ass whooped, sometimes it’s hard to keep the faith. However as we all know, it’s how you react to adversity and bounce back that measures the greatness of an individual.

The true leaders are guys who motivate those around them. And, sometimes, this needs to be vocalized just like we’ve seen in countless locker room speeches".

John said...

From one of Trump's web pages.

" The Trump plan also phases out the tax exemption on life insurance interest for high-income earners, ends the current tax treatment of carried interest for speculative partnerships that do not grow businesses or create jobs and are not risking their own capital, and reduces or eliminates other loopholes for the very rich and special interests. "

Laurie said...

Donald Trump's ideology of violence

if Trump comes to the twin cities there is a good chance I will join the protests.

John said...

I guess I don't have a big problem these key points. I wish you luck trying to interfere with his right to free speech, and his supporter's right to listen.

"This is more than an aside; this is the core of Trump's ideology. The protesters who interrupted his rally, the political correctness that kept the police from cracking their skulls, the press that takes the hippies' side — this is why America has stopped being great. We were strong, and we were tough, and we didn't take this kind of shit from anybody. And now we are weak, and we are scared, and we take this kind of shit from everybody."

"On February 1st, Trump made a promise to an angry crowd. You protect me, he said, and I'll protect you. "If you see someone getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Knock the hell out of them. I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise.""

John said...

But of course I would have had the BLM folks tossed in jail and given sizable fines the moment they stepped out onto the highway to block traffic. In my view people have the right to free speech, they do not have the right to interrupt others from doing the same or living their lives.

John said...

It is interesting that Liberals and BLM supporters who want to be able to gather and voice their views openly without interruption and persecution are the ones striving to interrupt Trump and his followers from doing the same at rallies...

I wonder how peaceful and accepting of protest the BLM folks would be if the KKK showed up at their rallies and caused a distraction while one of their leaders was trying to give a speech?

John said...

By the way, correlation wise he may be right.

As the Liberals remind us often, life was supposedly better 50 years ago. They of course blame the change on tax rates etc. However it is equally possible that it was caused by the changes that occurred in the 1960's and early 1970's. (ie free love, rampant welfare, increasing regulatory costs, loss in Buy American pride, main streaming of severe special ed kids, big reduction in 2 Parent households, etc)

The reality is that in a competitive world, a society that burdens itself in this way will have a hard time competing. Kind of like the idiots that are wasting our time because a pig's ear got scratched. Or because a violent Black man got shot after robbing a convenience store.

Anonymous said...

As the Liberals remind us often, life was supposedly better 50 years ago.

That's some I don't like to say for several reasons. For one thing it's such a cliche. People always long for some mythical glorious past with which which the present pales by comparison. See, for example, the opening song from the sit com "All in the Family" as one example, of many I could provide:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WxGYdTZaaY

"All in the Family" premiered about 45 years ago.

I am a regular reader of the Wall Street Journal, and how everything went wrong in the 1960's is one of it's common editorial themes.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

"I wonder how peaceful and accepting of protest the BLM folks would be if the KKK showed up at their rallies and caused a distraction while one of their leaders was trying to give a speech?"

I wouldn't categorize it as nostalgia for the past, but I do think our system is breaking down. I see it more in cyclical terms. Our system has broken down in the past. It's the sort of thing that happens. I think political violence in the streets, no matter what the source is evidence of that.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

What I do see in our time and what concerns me is, as opposed to an attack on the legitimacy of parties, an attack on the legitimacy of government. To me, this is reminiscent of the lead up to the Nazi's taking power in Germany. One reason that became possible is that the Weimar German government never really became a legitimate government across the German political spectrum. The signs of this attack on legitimacy are everywhere today. One example I notice is the attack on taxing power. It's become common to say government form of taxation is a form of theft. This is true of course, if one assumes that the authority imposing the tax is not legitimate, that the authority on which taxes are imposed is not lawful. To the extent that view becomes common, the government we have is breaking down, and perhaps in need of replacement with one whose legitimacy is more widely accepted.

==Hiram

Laurie said...

If I was to protest Trump I would join a group outside his campaign rally and perhaps take part in anti Trump group chants as Trump supporters walked by to attend the event. I once attended a campaign rally for president Bush and my protest consisted of being the only ones in the section who did not cheer or clap even one time.

I also enjoyed protesting President Bush when the republican convention was in St. Paul in 2004. I did not break any windows and was never anywhere near the action when things got a little out of control. I think the GOP convention this year in Cleveland will be way out of control. I already checked the dates and am a little disappointed that I will be camping in the mts of Colorado and no where near a televison to watch the action on cable news.

John said...

I don't think people mind taxes for roads, bridges, safety, security, etc, etc. You know the things we all want from government...

It is when they got into the arbitrary wealth transfer business when things got contentious. And it does not help that the Liberals seem to keep wanting more and more with no bounds.

John said...

Laurie,
Probably a good idea to stay out of the venue. To bad others do not have that good sense.

Anonymous said...

The big wealth transfer programs are Social Security and Medicare, and they are very popular with folks, and have been around for a good long while. People who use the "wealth transfer" label know that, which is why they prefer use the euphemism.

--Hiram

John said...

Hiram,
Social security and medicare are good programs when they are forced savings and insurance programs. Meaning that everyone pays and gets benefits relative to what they pay.

Unfortunately today's Liberals want to want to make them more like welfare by eliminating the income cap and taxing / limiting the benefits that wealthier recipients get.

And please do not forget nearly $1 Trillion of our Total Government $6 Trillion dollar budget goes to other "wealth transfer" programs.

And worse yet the Liberals say it is STILL NOT ENOUGH... They want free healthcare, free college, etc...

All of which will need to be funded by those who have learned, worked, saved, invested and gotten wealthy. Because as you say, there is no point in taxing poor people...

Laurie said...

I am skeptical of this fact "nearly $1 Trillion of our Total Government $6 Trillion dollar budget goes to other "wealth transfer" programs." though if it is true I do not object as I think people are deserving of food and health care which our free market economy does not provide to all.

Anonymous said...

It's all a matter of definition, I suppose. The government receives tax dollar. Unless it keeps them under a bed some place, sooner or later they are transferred to someone else, hence the wealth transfer.

==Hiram

Anonymous said...

The fact is, people don't have a clear idea of what government is, which tends to cloud any sort of value judgment. The size of government is often understood in terms of budget, for example. But when someone applies for Social Security, the government spends more on that person. Does that mean government has gotten larger by the amount of the Social Security payment?

--Hiram

John said...

Hiram,
As I have said over and over again, Social Security, Social Security Disability and Medicare are pretty effective programs. The only problem is that the government has not increased premiums fast enough to keep up with the desired benefits. Thus they will fail in time.

Laurie and Hiram,
As I have said over and over again, welfare is problematic because it reduces the consequences of being irresponsible and/or making bad decisions.

'It is okay if you waste the 13 years of free education, have children you can not afford to raise, are hooked on alcohol, drugs, gambling, cigarettes, raise your children poorly, etc...

We Liberals will work hard to take money from those who do the opposite and give it to you... Because we believe you deserve it no matter what choices you make or actions you take."

The Liberals then wonder why the working folks who are over taxed are angry. And why there are so many people who are not capable of getting a good job and why there are so many kids failing in school. Go figure.

jerrye92002 said...

Laurie, John is right. Last I checked, government spent the $1T on wealth transfer, out of total State and Federal spending of $6T. WHICH wouldn't be so bad, except that we aren't alleviating poverty, we're creating more of it. What is more compassionate, to keep people in poverty or to help them get out of it?

jerrye92002 said...

Anonymous Sean said...

"I thought the GOP liked states' rights?"

True, but the Constitution specifically grants Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce. It does not give them authority to require people to buy something (health insurance, not health care) that they do not want and cannot afford, nor to require employers to provide it to them. THAT tramples on State (and individual) rights.

jerrye92002 said...

Maybe now is the time to ask... Why is it OK for BLM people, Democrats and Socialists and their "running dogs" to block streets and burn down towns and to verbally and physically assault people, but it is NOT OK for people like Donald Trump to simply speak to an audience who voluntarily attends?

jerrye92002 said...

Whatever happened to "I think I'll write my Congressman"?

Anonymous said...

Why is it OK for BLM people, Democrats and Socialists and their "running dogs" to block streets and burn down towns and to verbally and physically assault people, but it is NOT OK for people like Donald Trump to simply speak to an audience who voluntarily attends?

It isn't OK for anyone. And it's certainly the case that BLM is hurting their cause by engaging in such demonstrations. As for Democratic candidates using such incendiary language, I am sure the data mining is going on to find examples of our gentle, mild, way too cool for school suggesting it was ok to beat up demonstrators at his rallies but so far the effort has been unsuccessful.

--Hiram

Sean said...

"And worse yet the Liberals say it is STILL NOT ENOUGH... They want free healthcare, free college, etc... "

When they had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate couldn't pass either of those things, so you should be careful about painting with a broad brush.

The likely nominee of the Democratic party most certainly does not support free health care and free college.

Sean said...

And, seriously, John if you're going to continue complaining about the debt, you need to address the completely irresponsible plans put forth by the leading Presidential contenders on the Republican side of the aisle. The three leading candidates all call for reducing federal taxes by nearly $1T per year and have produced no plans to cut spending by the same amount. Ted Cruz, for instance, has a tax plan that would trim federal revenue by $860B annually, but he has only specified $50B annually in spending cuts.

That's a hole in the budget about 8x larger than what Hillary Clinton's tax-and-spending plans would total.

John said...

I see Hillary as a single L Liberal, more of a Left Leaning moderate.

The LL's like Bernie and the MP commenters are the ones who want single payer and free college.

John said...

I agree that the politicians from both sides seem happy to pass the bill on to our kids. And that the GOP folks seem to be as bad or worse.

Food for thought.
Cruz Plan

Anonymous said...

"...who want single payer and free college."

It honestly amazes me that there are people who don't want our tax dollars to actually work for...wait for it...the taxpayers. I would have thought supposedly intelligent people such as yourself would understand what Bernie is saying. Never mind that his plans actually cost the average taxpayer less than what they're currently paying.

Joel

John said...

Joel,
I would rather have my dollars work for my family and myself. My wife and I worked very hard to learn, work, earn, save and invest. Now my daughter is benefitting from these choices / efforts via a "free 4 year" degree.

Why again would I want to bring bureaucrats, rules, regulations, fraud protection, waste and extra cost into this simple capitalistic exercise?

Bernie's dream is just that... A dream. There is simply too much waste in most of the socialistic enterprises.

jerrye92002 said...

"It honestly amazes me that there are people who don't want our tax dollars to actually work for...wait for it...the taxpayers." - Joel

I don't know those people. I know LOTS of people who want our taxpayer dollars to work effectively at doing those few things we cannot do for ourselves with OUR money. I know even more people who don't want our taxpayer dollars going to people who do NOT pay taxes. Charity yes, Government throwing money at the problem and making it worse, no.

jerrye92002 said...

"I agree that the politicians from both sides seem happy to pass the bill on to our kids. And that the GOP folks seem to be as bad or worse." -- John

I simply cannot see it that way. Certainly individual Republicans, or whole swaths of the caucus in many cases, have talked about balanced budgets, about reducing or curbing deficits, or about specific waste that could be cut. They are attacked mercilessly and blocked by Democrats at every turn. And it doesn't help when somebody DOES come up with a plan that people pooh-pooh it as not sufficient. Can we not START, somewhere, sometime?

Cruz's plan, for instance, points out how to save $50B per year for 10 years. It's not a lot, but that's out of the small potatoes that we call "discretionary spending." It needs doing, it does save real money, so why not applaud it for the "good start" it is? At LEAST it is recognition of the problem and a positive step, compared to the gridlock/denial we now have.

John said...

I am sitting here thinking of all the different people I know who pursued college degrees in areas that were fascinating to them as teens, and yet the job openings did not exist or the pay was too low. And this was with them or their Parents directly on the hook for the expense.

I can not even how many people would pursue their passions if they did not have to pay for it. Which may sound great for those free spirits out there... However the pay back for our society would be abysmal. I mean how many 4 year music, history, geology, acting, art, etc experts do we need and how do they help the USA compete in a high tech global economy?

John said...

Jerry,

"Ted Cruz, for instance, has a tax plan that would trim federal revenue by $860B annually, but he has only specified $50B annually in spending cuts." Sean

And yes I have heard the GOP silliness that one cuts taxes to raise revenues. Unfortunately Reagan and Bush showed that it did not work.

Zfacts Reagan Bush Tax Cuts

Anonymous said...

"I know even more people who don't want our taxpayer dollars going to people who do NOT pay taxes."

How much of your tax dollar do you imagine these awful people get?

Joel

Anonymous said...

"I can not even how many people would pursue their passions..."

Indeed, why on earth should people get to pursue happiness? And do you really think that we would be worse off with more art and music?

Not everyone believes, as you and jerry do, that the accumulation of wealth should be life's purpose.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

"How much of your tax dollar do you imagine these awful people get?" --Joel

About 1/6, apparently. And they aren't "awful people." They are real human beings that made a mistake or missed an opportunity someplace in life and are now trapped in a system that gives them money taken from others, instead of real help.

jerrye92002 said...

Absolutely nothing against art and music. I dabble myself, but "don't quit the day job." I have a favorite story about a guy who worked on our factory floor-- an assembler. He had been there for years but didn't socialize much. Pretty quiet. He showed up on time, did his job well, and left when the whistle blew. Many years later we learned that he would go home every night and practice the violin for hours and hours. His passion was to be a concert violinist, and that was his "life." The job was his living. I have nothing against those with a passion for something, but I'm not going to pay for their art unless I like it, and if enough people don't like it, that person is entitled to go find something to do to pay their own bills. Anything else is societal stupidity.

jerrye92002 said...

"And yes I have heard the GOP silliness that one cuts taxes to raise revenues. Unfortunately Reagan and Bush showed that it did not work." -- John

Such statements are common when you read left-wing sources. The fact is, the Reagan (and I believe) Bush tax cuts DID increase federal revenues. The debt exploded because Congress failed to curb (or even control) spending, which rose faster. Just like MN, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a SPENDING problem. Trump's simple diagnosis, that "we have stupid people in Washington" may not point to a cure, but it sure resonates with people who believe the same thing. And why shouldn't they? Any fool knows that when you get deep in debt the first thing you do is cut up your credit cards, and then start figuring out what you can cut out of your budget.

John said...

Joel,
With 3 daughters, I have paid for more dance, art and music lessons, instrument rental / purchase fees and costumes than you would believe.

I am happy to work hard so my daughters can pursue happiness. However I also explain to them that at some point as responsible adult citizens of the USA they need to have a job that will pay their bills. (ie no freeloading on me or others)

What is your rational that "Bob" should be forced to give up "Bob's" money so that "Bill" can use it to pursue "Bill's" passions?

John said...

Joel,
"accumulation of wealth should be life's purpose"

Ironically I think that is the goal of my Parents. They have worked, scrimped, saved and invested so long to grow their net worth that they do not know how to turn it off. Whereas the driver of my "wealth goal" is security and freedom to do what I want when I want.

Therefore I own many toys and take vacations. Neither of which help my "accumulation of wealth" in the least.

jerrye92002 said...

Accumulation of wealth SHOULD be your purpose, so that you never become a burden to others and that you can actually enjoy your "golden years." If you do well, you can and should help others. I honestly believe that is what Trump is doing.

And you can only work about so many hours a day without eventually realizing there are other things in life. At some point you need to make time for those things. Another story: We were shopping for an RV. The dealer said he had a very nice one, deluxe everything, for a very special price because it was "used," but never used. ???
He explained that the biggest banker in town, at the age of 50, had decided that it was time to spend more time with his teenage kids and "enjoy life" a bit. He purchased the RV and financed it through his bank (why pay cash?). "I'll be back next Saturday to pick it up. I want it all fueled and filled and ready to go." Saturday came around, but no one appeared. The dealer called the house and the eldest son picked up the phone. "Haven't you heard," he said, "Dad died yesterday." Needless to say, the dealer had the rig on consignment with a seller eager to be rid of the awful memory.

I also think my renegade colleague had some wise words. Called in for his annual review, he was criticized because he always worked a strict 8-5, while many of his professional colleagues would work until at least 6 or 7, or come in early, or both. His answer, "I don't see why I should work 50 hours a week just to get a job where I can work 60 hours a week."

Anonymous said...

"However I also explain to them that at some point as responsible adult citizens of the USA they need to have a job that will pay their bills."

You do know there are artists and people who work in the Arts that are able to do that, right? It sure sounds like you haven't a clue.

Joel

John said...

Yes I am aware that some people make a great living in the arts. However there are as many or more that need a second job...

Worst ROI

Earn your money back

jerrye92002 said...

Joel, have you heard anybody here object to people making their own living through artistic work? Heck, I'm OK with people who can make a creative hobby pay for itself, or partly so. Someday I'll sell some of my wildlife photos. But just because you are an "artist" doesn't entitle you to anything, least of all being dependent on the taxpayers.

John said...

Jerry,
I think you wrote some keywords. "being dependent on the taxpayers"

I personally think Liberals can not see people as "being dependent on the taxpayers". Some how they see the world differently.

It is like my oldest daughter showing me the new tattoo she bought with "her money". Even though the wife and I compensated her college and living expenses to the tune of ~$28,000 last year, and she only earned maybe $3,000 last year.

Yet when I explained to her that she really did not have any of "her money" at this time in her life she went ballistic and explained to me how she had earned it.

Or when she ordered a pizza while at home with "her money" and being unwilling to share it with her sisters.

Overall she is a great young adult, however in some ways she still has a ways to mature...

Anonymous said...

"However there are as many or more that need a second job..."

So what you're saying is that they are a pretty typical American.

Joel

Anonymous said...

"...can make a creative hobby pay for itself..."

You don't understand artists in the least. A "creative hobby"? Good heavens, could you be more condescending?

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

"You don't understand artists in the least. A "creative hobby"? Good heavens, could you be more condescending?"

I certainly could, but I won't. What else do you call an artistic endeavor that does not provide enough income to sustain oneself? What part of the advice "Don't give up the day job" strikes you as unwise or improper?

"You don't understand artists in the least."

You don't know that; you cannot possibly say that unless your intent is pure insult. It so happens I am a very good photographer and a fine musician. In my youth I did some acting, and still can. I'm writing a book with 3 more in the "hopper." I've worked with the Minnesota Arts Board, held season tickets to the Minnesota Orchestra, performed at Orchestra Hall, and toured the great galleries of Italy. None of these are done to provide income, so I understand how to pursue one's passions while still putting food on the table through other work. Please confine your future comments to something you know.

John said...

Joel,
You are so amusing. Check This Out

By the way, you are correct that I know little about artists, musicians or others who strive to make a living in the fine and liberal arts fields. I wish them the best of luck, since I have no desire to subsidize their life choices. I would rather use my efforts and money to pay for things I enjoy.

Here is what I am familiar with regarding acting. And my TV friend who was anchoring in Sioux Falls finally had to find a job that paid more.

“One of the biggest challenges for young actors today is how do you support yourself,” says Rachel, citing a recent article by David Byrne. “It is harder now for young creatives to both live in New York, be artistic and build lives for themselves.”

Outside of acting, Lin’s myriad of professions run the gamut from event planning to email marketing to fashion public relations. She has also worked in nightlife as a bottle hostess or poker waitress but she prefers to cultivate skills such as marketing or coding."Forbes So You Want to be an Actor

John said...

Or this... Art School

Or this... Musician

My point is... There are good to great jobs for the very gifted... The rest often need to find day jobs. I am not sure why you find this offensive.

I had friends who dreamed of becoming professional athletes. Needless to say given the few positions available, one manages a dairy process plant and the other is a manager at ADM.

jerrye92002 said...

On second thought, Joel may be partly right. I do not understand the classic "starving artist." Most of them today aren't starving because they're on the dole or been lucky enough to get the NEA to pay for their crap (literally). But if you really are a starving artist, perhaps the universe is trying to tell you something. I don't understand why you won't listen.

I do have to sympathize with today's young people. Finding a job, any job, that pays the bills is difficult. Trying to do that while pursuing a career in the arts against formidable odds must make both more difficult, still.

John said...

As far as I understand: artists, storytellers, musicians, etc throughout history have always needed to impress and rely on a rich benefactor.

Not sure why that should change.

jerrye92002 said...

This discussion reminds me of my old comments about the NEA or other government "support" of the arts. I object mightily to government giving money to individual artists. Too much of it is (literally) crap that the public wouldn't buy or pay to see given the choice. But there IS a place, I believe, for government support of the arts in general, in providing "infrastructure." I believe that art improves society and civilization and is therefore a "public good." So if government decides we can put up an art gallery or music hall, we can debate it but only as to whether that is the MOST public good for the money. Once that infrastructure is built, the operation of it should and must be turned over to a non-government, non-profit agency to run. Maintenance, etc., can come from donations, and the exhibits, performances, whatever, would need to come from ticket sales, purchases, donations, whatever. The result is that the art gallery can display whatever it chooses, but if nobody likes the exhibit the gallery runs out of money. It's an automatic, free-market valuation of the artist and art. The artist is free to create and to live on what he creates, or to support himself another way, just not at government expense.

Government provides the "capital" equipment, the artist produces, and patrons pay for, the "product." Ideally that balances out.