100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: It's time for Trump to kill government funding for the arts | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
John Stossel: It's time for Trump to kill government funding for the arts
Next week, Donald Trump releases his new budget. It's expected to cut spending on things like the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Good! Government has no business funding art. When politicians decide which ideas deserve a boost, art is debased. When they use your money to shape the culture, they shape it in ways that make culture friendlier to government. As The Federalist's Elizabeth Harrington points out, the National Endowment for the Arts doesn't give grants to sculpture honoring the Second Amendment or exhibitions on the benefits of traditional marriage. They fund a play about "lesbian activists who oppose gun ownership" and "art installations about climate change." The grant-making establishment is proudly leftist. A Trump administration won't change that. During the George W. Bush years, lefty causes got funding, but I can't find any project with a conservative agenda. It's not just the politics that are wrong. Government arts funding doesn't even go to the needy. Arts grants tend to go to people who got prior arts grants. Some have friends on grant-making committees. Some went to the same schools as the people who pick what to subsidize. They know the right things to say on applications so they look "serious" enough to underwrite. They're good at writing applications. They're not necessarily good at art. Defenders of public funding say their subsidies bring things like classical music to the poor. But the truth is that poor and middle-class people rarely go to hear classical music, even when subsidies make it cheap. Subsidies pay for art rich people like. Like so many other programs, government arts funding is a way for the well-connected to reap benefits while pretending to help the common man. The Trump-hating left is incensed at the idea that government might stop funding the arts. USA Today reports that "arts groups" will "battle President Trump." A Washington, D.C., lobby says it will mobilize 300,000 "citizen activists." We can count on the media to distort the issue. We will lose some propaganda if government money goes, but we won't lose art. We might lose things like performance artist Karen Finley covering herself in chocolate, but most artists will keep doing what they do because they love it -- and because sometimes other people love that work enough to pay for it voluntarily. Let people pay for the art they really want instead of the art for which the government decides to make them pay. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good, put those loudmouth d-heads in Hollywood in their place....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Art is as important as war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Art is as important as war. We can load the warheads with paint...like Donald Sutherland did in Kelly's Heroes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lol, maybe the UN will be next.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 03/08/17 10:29 AM
|
|
John Stossel: It's time for Trump to kill government funding for the arts Next week, Donald Trump releases his new budget. It's expected to cut spending on things like the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Good! Government has no business funding art. When politicians decide which ideas deserve a boost, art is debased. When they use your money to shape the culture, they shape it in ways that make culture friendlier to government. As The Federalist's Elizabeth Harrington points out, the National Endowment for the Arts doesn't give grants to sculpture honoring the Second Amendment or exhibitions on the benefits of traditional marriage. They fund a play about "lesbian activists who oppose gun ownership" and "art installations about climate change." The grant-making establishment is proudly leftist. A Trump administration won't change that. During the George W. Bush years, lefty causes got funding, but I can't find any project with a conservative agenda. It's not just the politics that are wrong. Government arts funding doesn't even go to the needy. Arts grants tend to go to people who got prior arts grants. Some have friends on grant-making committees. Some went to the same schools as the people who pick what to subsidize. They know the right things to say on applications so they look "serious" enough to underwrite. They're good at writing applications. They're not necessarily good at art. Defenders of public funding say their subsidies bring things like classical music to the poor. But the truth is that poor and middle-class people rarely go to hear classical music, even when subsidies make it cheap. Subsidies pay for art rich people like. Like so many other programs, government arts funding is a way for the well-connected to reap benefits while pretending to help the common man. The Trump-hating left is incensed at the idea that government might stop funding the arts. USA Today reports that "arts groups" will "battle President Trump." A Washington, D.C., lobby says it will mobilize 300,000 "citizen activists." We can count on the media to distort the issue. We will lose some propaganda if government money goes, but we won't lose art. We might lose things like performance artist Karen Finley covering herself in chocolate, but most artists will keep doing what they do because they love it -- and because sometimes other people love that work enough to pay for it voluntarily. Let people pay for the art they really want instead of the art for which the government decides to make them pay. I say take the grants(corporate welfare) from corporations too,, its not like they really go to help poor people either... but corporations are too important for everyone, of course so, lets make it a complete corporatocracy,, because corporations and businesspeople will never be 'corrupt' or greedy like government 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We the people for the people..
hmmmmm... Yup... governments really have no place.. supporting art that can support itself... but a grant to help up-and-coming struggling artist should always be made available.. from the government.. the people... Art and Science are all cultural... Expressions of all of us as a world.. Along with self-expression.. Along with your right to bear.arms.. Along with the right to protect your nation.. Along with the right to go where no man has gone before.. Wait a minute @!!..lol..wink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Art is as important as war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I say take the grants(corporate welfare) from corporations too,, its not like they really go to help poor people either... but corporations are too important for everyone, of course so, lets make it a complete corporatocracy,, because corporations and businesspeople will never be 'corrupt' or greedy like government
Let's shut down those mean ol corporations and replace them with? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I say take the grants(corporate welfare) from corporations too,, its not like they really go to help poor people either... but corporations are too important for everyone, of course so, lets make it a complete corporatocracy,, because corporations and businesspeople will never be 'corrupt' or greedy like government
Let's shut down those mean ol corporations and replace them with? why do we need to replace them,, anymore than art or medical or welfare each fend for themself,,,compete or die,,,,,the AMERICAN WAY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's time for Trump to kill government
That was the only thing I saw on my screen. ...I was so happy. Then I read: funding for the arts
and I was all "awwww." It's expected to cut spending... Good!
Maybe. Is it just "cut spending for the arts" in order to "increase spending on other crap?" Unless it's "Trump is expected to cut spending in order to lower taxes so people can keep their own money without being robbed" then it's not really "good" it's just playing people with headlines. Some have friends on grant-making committees. Some went to the same schools as the people who pick what to subsidize. They know the right things to say on applications so they look "serious" enough to underwrite. They're good at writing applications. They're not necessarily good at art.
So...you're saying they are similar to corporate america? That seems to be how a significant number of people I've worked for or worked under obtained their job. Nepotism, knew a guy who knew a guy, touched base with friend from school/old job, lied on/padded their resume, looked good on paper but were incompetent. We can count on the media to distort the issue.
Unfortunately, even government subsidized media distorts issues. Private company owned/funded media, government subsidized media, it's all biased by the owners. Welcome to the oligarchy? Let people pay for the art they really want instead of the art for which the government decides to make them pay.
If the vagina monologues are government subsidized, does that count as state sponsored prostitution? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Several Republican Congresses have already all but eliminated the tiny amount of Federal funding of the arts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Stossel: It's time for Trump to kill government funding for the arts Next week, Donald Trump releases his new budget. It's expected to cut spending on things like the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Good! Government has no business funding art. When politicians decide which ideas deserve a boost, art is debased. When they use your money to shape the culture, they shape it in ways that make culture friendlier to government. As The Federalist's Elizabeth Harrington points out, the National Endowment for the Arts doesn't give grants to sculpture honoring the Second Amendment or exhibitions on the benefits of traditional marriage. They fund a play about "lesbian activists who oppose gun ownership" and "art installations about climate change." The grant-making establishment is proudly leftist. A Trump administration won't change that. During the George W. Bush years, lefty causes got funding, but I can't find any project with a conservative agenda. It's not just the politics that are wrong. Government arts funding doesn't even go to the needy. Arts grants tend to go to people who got prior arts grants. Some have friends on grant-making committees. Some went to the same schools as the people who pick what to subsidize. They know the right things to say on applications so they look "serious" enough to underwrite. They're good at writing applications. They're not necessarily good at art. Defenders of public funding say their subsidies bring things like classical music to the poor. But the truth is that poor and middle-class people rarely go to hear classical music, even when subsidies make it cheap. Subsidies pay for art rich people like. Like so many other programs, government arts funding is a way for the well-connected to reap benefits while pretending to help the common man. The Trump-hating left is incensed at the idea that government might stop funding the arts. USA Today reports that "arts groups" will "battle President Trump." A Washington, D.C., lobby says it will mobilize 300,000 "citizen activists." We can count on the media to distort the issue. We will lose some propaganda if government money goes, but we won't lose art. We might lose things like performance artist Karen Finley covering herself in chocolate, but most artists will keep doing what they do because they love it -- and because sometimes other people love that work enough to pay for it voluntarily. Let people pay for the art they really want instead of the art for which the government decides to make them pay. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the Dems and Libs already have their Play Doh and finger painting classes
Isn't that enough? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 03/11/17 08:55 AM
|
|
lets just completely computerize this biatch,,,,,
humans? who cares don't need no stinking art or music or affordable healthcare and education, or faith if you ain't talented (in the upper financial status) enough to do it 'on your own',,, screw ya,,,,,,government should only be of the economy, by the economy and for the economy,, anything not dealing with money making for the money makers,, should remain 'privatized' for those honest corporations and those honest wealthy businessman to have control of,,,, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Valeris
on
Sat 03/11/17 10:29 PM
|
|
John Stossel: It's time for Trump to kill government funding for the arts Next week, Donald Trump releases his new budget. It's expected to cut spending on things like the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Good! BAD! Instead of funding The Arts, Education,Research,Social Programs, or even decent Healthcare for all Americans-Let's put those dollars into good use! Let's spend billions on Guns,Drones, Bombs,Cyber Technologies, Bio-Warfare,Kick-Backs, Bank & Wall Street Bail-Outs! Let's just Kill Everyone & ask questions, later... Lets spend TO DESTROY but not TO CREATE. “Societies in decline have no use for visionaries.” ― Anaïs Nin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't have a problem with a liberal (fake news program) being on tv, I just don't want to pay for it. Maybe they should try advertising and competing like all the others do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yea~~~~sweetz art......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“Piss Christ,” once branded as a “deplorable, despicable display of vulgarity,” The artwork debuted in 1989 and was funded through prize money provided by the National Endowment for the Arts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personally I believe that the Federal GOVERNMENT should not be involved with anything that does not have to do with supporting this country. The tax income should be divided up to each state and one equal share to the Feds. 1/51 of the total.
Each state should determine where its money goes. If California decides it wants to support the movie industry that should be up to Californians. If New York wants to create a park out of Long Island that should be up to the New Yorkers. If Maine wants to make abortion legal that should be up to Maine's residents. Floridians should not have to pay to subsidize or support Utah's crops. When they buy a crop from Utah, part of the cost pays for Utah to support its industry. If Florida wants to preserve the Everglades, Alaska should not have to help pay for it. It is up to Florida to acquire the funding. Sure it will cost more to visit the Everglades but that is the cost of their preservation. The only thing that the Federal government should need money for is to pay salaries of the people directly employed. Every other expense should be paid by the states. This includes welfare, defense and education. If a building needs support, like the Pentagon, Each state contributes the funding from their share to support it. The federal government is supposed to be an entity that represents all the states of the union. The states are supposed to be telling the federal government not the other way around. Just think how much money can be saved by letting the states determine what is important for their people. If a state needs more money for something they can petition the other states for assistance. If assistance is not garnered, they either make the money that is available work or they do without. Kinda like what you have to do with your own money. A federal government should never be in debt. It should never need credit because it should never operate above its revenue. Oh, but I can hear it now, Natural Disasters. If a natural disaster happens in a state the other states provide funds for disaster relief. But why should Montana pay for a hurricane in Mississippi? Montana has very few natural disasters. But they do have Yellowstone and it could be a huge disaster if the caldera erupts. Their participation would be insurance for assistance in the future. As the ice caps melt and sea levels rise New Orleans will flood and soon after that every port city will be undulated. Are we to expect support from the rest of the world whose port cities are also flooding? How will we be able to borrow funding from other countries that are facing the same disaster at the same time? The federal government is supposed to be a coordinator not a state. No citizen lives in the state of DC. Washington DC is a district that is in the state of Maryland. All residents of Washington DC are residents of Maryland. They are not residents of the Federal USA anymore that you or I are. Want to balance the Federal Budget? Only pay for the things that are required for the Federal Government to exist. Let the states decide and pay for all the programs we all agreed to have. |
|
|
|
|
