The First Ever Recession in Washington DC is Coming!

That's what the NEA does. They are almost never the sole provider of funds for anything. That doesn't mean artists don't need the money from the NEA.

 

I disagree that they "need" that money. I see no reason to rob the people in order to supplement their funding when they can so easily get funding directly from the people.....which they already do in nearly every case for almost all of their budget.

 

Well you are more than welcome to go run a ballet troupe, theater company, publishing company, since you know so much more about it than the Joffrey Ballet and American Ballet Theater. They feel they need it, as do dozens of other artistic endeavors.

 

I'm sure they do feel they need it, but I'm fine with them having to raise an extra 470K to meet their 48.2 million dollar budget through other means instead of stealing that money from the people. In fact, I'm sure EVERYONE who gets even a dime of the people's money feel like they need it.....but no one is truly entitled to the people's money and when you are looking to pay down the debt cuts must be made. IMO cuts should be made across the board and frivolous things should be entirely eliminated until a time that the people's finances are better.

 

If you think art is a frivolous thing, you are living proof of America's cultural illiteracy -- which won't be improved upon by slashing budgets.

My mother just retired from the state theatre of Georgia with nothing more than a handshake. It's hardly just for 30 years of 12+ hour days of hard physical labor building sets for less money than some get for unemployment. Theaters struggle to retain any staff at all, offer few if any benefits, and pay terrible. And do you know why people do it anyway? Because they understand that what they do is of enormous value to society.

The theatre my mother retired from, and that my step-father is the creative director for is one of the top regional theatres in the country. It still teeters near bankruptcy every year, despite receiving state funding, and despite filling seats every season. In order to do that, of course, it has to put on a lot of things that appeal to casual theatregoers, and attract those that would not normally attend, which means a lot less Bertolt Brecht and Sam Shepard and a lot more Annie and The Sound of Music and doing everything it can to avoid raising ticket prices so that it becomes a privilege only for wealthy people.

It has to fundraise -- it already has the underwriting of all the town's major businesses, of all it's wealthiest residents. Where do you expect the money to come from? When you talk about the arts and funding, consider that you sound as well informed and sympathetic as the nosy fellow Acela passenger that interrupted me and my friend when we talked about modifying my Remington 870 to virtue signal and shame me.

So many would **** on what is already shameless cultural illiteracy in our country and yet shrug off the 4 to 6 TRILLION dollar debt from two recent wars of choice. How many regional theatres do you think would THAT would fund?

The irony of this is that one would have to travel to some of the places most ravaged by war, religion, and haters of women and art to find a place with less cultural literacy or self-awareness.

Some of us stand for a world with more theatre, more ballet, more classical music, more opera, and more art and less bombs and limbless men with PTSD. Don't say with a straight face that we can't afford the former while you pull out all stops to pave the way for more of the latter.

I've seen more wars in the Middle East than you will ever have, and I can tell you with certainty and first hand experience that music and art does more for the cause of peace and freedom than every round of .223 and 7.62 X39 mm ball that will ever be pressed.

 

I never suggested that, I suggested that some of the programs to supplement their income in a very small way was frivolous. The arts wouldn't suffer if they had to do a bit more fundraising to make up for that and it is less money we'd have to borrow from foreign countries. As I said though, it would only be a start. The US isn't going to become fiscally responsible again until some more serious cuts are made, but if you can't even agree to trim the fat by cutting frivolous programs that have no real need.....how are you ever going to agree to real cuts?

When I go to cut some of the fat from the military, we'll have people freak out much like you are right now talking about how important having a military is.....like you they'll have completely missed the point and are only responding with straw man arguments, but it is what it is I guess.

When I go to cut some of the fat from the entitlement programs that are bankrupting the country I'll have similar pushback. People talking about how any reduction to entitlements is murdering children and old people or whatever.

What I'm basically saying here is that people like you are the reason the country has spent itself into debt so badly. The same mentality that says "Of course I have to buy a new Lamborghini every year, how else will I get to work?"

 

Also, since this is a particularly dishonest part of your strawman, I thought I'd mention it specifically. If you are going to count the potential 80 year cost of those two wars, it's only fair if we call the NEA budget 12 billion dollars. Don't you think it's worth it to save 12 billion dollars by cutting just one program that doesn't really do anything other than slightly subsidize companies that get nearly all of their funding directly from the public to begin with?

 

Would that mean cutting the 80 year cost of the NEA at 12 billion compared to 7 trillion on Afghanistan/Iraq equals a .0017% savings/reduction? So THIS is what common sense fat cutting looks like....I get your straw man argument as we can't go back on the wars now but the fact remains that the pittance of funding the NEA provides to numerous arts endeavors isn't even a fraction of a drop compared to our real debt and budget needs.

 

My point all along is that this is a first step, if you can't agree to do really easy cuts like this, how is anyone going to agree to actual cuts? My very first statement was that the US can't return to fiscal responsibility until they make across the boards cuts including those to the military and entitlements with entitlements being the real monster that makes up over 60% of the entire budget (not just discretionary spending, the ENTIRE budget).

When you are broke, the first thing you cut out is frivolous spending on entertainment....you don't go to the ballet when you are overdrawn at the bank and your credit cards are near maxed...sure that one trip to the ballet isn't going to bankrupt you, but it's not something you should be spending your money on in that situation. Once you recover financially, you can resume whatever entertainment budget you can afford. The government should be the same. Now plenty of state governments are still going to fund the arts, and rightfully so, we're talking about the federal government here. So it's not like I'm shutting down theaters, I'm just trying to get the federal government to be fiscally responsible and cut away at their debt so that they will be in a position in the future to spend on art projects if they see fit.

 

Agree to disagree I guess, if we are just chiseling at the edges then we aren't serious, just idealogic. The example of the ballet company isn't indicative of all the much smaller community arts programs that need every cent they can muster to operate. I happen to belive as it's my avocation as well, that the arts have a larger impact on our lives than just a balance sheet. Especially a balance sheet that is mere crumbs comparatively and those crumbs are desperately needed.

 

I won a National Endowment for the Arts Fellowship in 2005, and I applied for another one this year. I got $10,000 that time. They gave out 10 awards in my category in the entire U.S. Taken all together, that doesn't add up to much money. But that $10,000 helped me a lot.

 

I'm happy for you, but I still don't want the federal government borrowing 10k from others in order to give that to you. Now when the debt is paid down and spending is reigned in to a sustainable level, then I'd be more willing to have 10k taken from others and given to you as I'm sure you'll do something productive with it.

 

He'll save money but spend a huge amount on an unnecessary expanded military which will cause an even greater economic collapse.

 

Make commercially viable art and you don't have to worry about government funding. Do you think the Avengers doesn't get made without the NEA? Government funded art is by definition that which cannot support itself. Those artists can tell their story walking. It is laughable that other countries would consider the US culturally illiterate, as American culture is exported all around the world and is almost invariably as or more popular than the local culture wherever it arrives. 9 of the top 20 grossing films at the Chinese box office are American. 13 of the top grossing films at the Japanese box office are American. The majority of the top grossing films in France and the UK are American. It isn't limited only to Hollywood movies either. American music, books, television, and web content are popular around the world. What people mean when they say Americans are culturally illiterate is that they don't like commercially successful media. There is nothing that makes ballet inherently superior to film, but that is the conceit that drives this point of view. So yes, get rid of the NEA. America produces plenty of art, and there is no need for government funding to keep doing so.

 

lololololololol
*cry cry*
Did someone just call The Avengers art?
Jesus.

"When people say Americans are culturally illiterate," as you claim, they say "Americans think The Avengers is art; they don't know the value of anything that doesn't turn a profit."

 

"The arts are essential to any complete national life. The State owes it to itself to sustain and encourage them….Ill fares the race which fails to salute the arts with the reverence and delight which are their due."

- Winston Churchill

 

This is why Houston is devoid of any culture and Rome has all this wonderful architecture.

 

"I moved on her like a b****."

- Donald Trump

 

Liberals have never seen a government program they did not like other than he military. Nothing new here. They will whine and b**** about every single non-military spending cut.

 

I don't know much about the Arts. What the heck is that piece suppose to mean? But that's my failing to see. From what I read, it seems to contribute to a rich, creative, thoughtful and open-minded society. Throwing out pieces and performances that are thought provoking can do that.

It's such a minuscule part of federal spending that cutting it off makes virtually no dent to the debt or budget. Sure, we can start somewhere, but here? And how does that square that with wanting to increase military spending? We already spend more than the next 7 largest spending military in the world combined, and that's not enough? Are we that insecure? What problems are we trying to solve with more military spending - and what happen to the idea that throwing more money at the problem doesn't solve it?