truthfully, in order to get us out of the hole the economy is in, every American's taxes need to be doubled and stay that way for the next 50 years.. 

or we could stop spending...

theres a reason that no matter the tax rates, government revenue from it is always 18%.

i believe let people keep more of what they rightfully earn. raising taxes will just make people shift and move their money around in a way, to avoid taxes, spending will continue, and nothing will change.

my take, let people keep their money, and have government spend less of it. its not a revenue problem we have, its a spending problem

Stopping spending will not allow us to recover whats already lost and promised to our people. Even if you end social security tomorrow, the government still has obligations to fulfill all past promises of payment. There is also the 14.8 trillion dollar hole that wont go away if we ignore it.

Taxes need to be raised. I hate the sound of it as much as the next, but even I understand this is needed in order for us to pay our debts and dues.

well it wont be easy, and it will take a long time. but our deficit needs to be fixed without raising taxes. it will take a while but it can be done. there are numerous plans that will get this done. raising taxes will stifel growth, slowing our already dreadfully slow economy. the way to get our economy going is to get government out of the way, and let free market antroponours (spelling?) loose. get government out bed with business, but also dont steel from them either.

let people reap the benefits from the sweat of their brow (or however the saying goes)

Paintings, statues, music, books, movies and cartoons are made with the intent to just create, but they still have to make money somehow. Hell, Bach, Shakespeare and Mozart all had pieces of work that was specifically designed and created to appeal to their benefactor at the time. History is filled with artists who were paid to create great pieces of work, some of them moderated just like some of todays games are. 

Your also eqauting art with quality, not all art is good art (imo) and there is no objective view of art. People laugh when Black Ops is brought up, but how is Black Ops any different in terms of quality from this:

In the end, your attempting to close off  the term 'art' to a very specific kind of idea, but the problem is that not everyone agrees with your idea and they shouldn't have to. When all it basically comes down to is that art is process of arranging items in a way that infleunces and affects one or more of the senses, emotions or intellect. Games fall under that definition.

Just so you know, the way you think of art was traditional way, which is that art is used to describe something of skill or mastery. That traditional description changed during the Roman period and it's now just a method of stimulating thought or emotion. 

I get the impression that you just read the last word of my post and went on a rant.

I have not even touched upon many of the things you have implied in your post.

Nope, you said that games were created with mass consumption in mind, you said that games can't be art because they aren't so 'rare' and that anyone who thought so are fools. I think I hit those two points in my post.

As I thought, you just went on a rant.

Wow, your great at this, you make an argument as to why games can't be called art, I give you a rebuttal and now your being all butthurt about it. I'll end this now, but from now on, don't start an argument you can't fight for, you only look silly.

I didn't actually make that argument. Calm down, and read through this thread carefully.