Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  2 3 4 5 6  Next ›  Last »  (11 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mike Stab
10:20 AM on 09/07/2012
Jesus would have been cut by Mitt because he made no money.

Money is the only thing this man values.

And he has no values regarding how he makes it.
10:16 PM on 09/06/2012
"Some of these things, like those endowment efforts and PBS I very much appreciate and like what they do in many cases, but I just think they have to stand on their own," he said in the interview.

Okay so you'll cut the subsidy to corporations? Tell them no more tax breaks stand on your own? How about the military, live within the budget you have, you got to stand on your own? The arts define who we are as a country. The arts inspired our youth to dream. The arts keep our heritage and treasures alive.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
starchildjg24
Balance, Logic and Humor Rule
02:45 PM on 09/07/2012
The article is also correct. Such programs employ a lot of people, and bring a lot of money into a community. Their total budget wouldn't even pay for a couple of months of photocopying in the defense budget. The defense budget is definitely obese, and cutting it a bit might help them be a bit more careful how much they pay for toilet seats!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
California Granny
and family.
02:53 PM on 09/06/2012
Mitt IS A IDIOT. In his books if organization does NOT MAKE MONEY, OUT THEY GO to oblivion.
What a GUY FOR money makers.
11:51 AM on 09/05/2012
See previous post for Part 1:

Part 2:
They refuse to accept that we agree that art is necessary to all our lives. They aren't getting their own way, so they throw a 2-year old hissy fit and tell us how much they hate us and how mean we are. Do they have any clue how ridiculously uninformed and immature they look?

Everything is is black or white with them - and no, that is not a racist remark. There is no grey area - they are closed minded and selfish. They want what they want - they want it now - and they want the taxpayer to give it to them.

Why can't they understand that people are taxed to the point that they are living in poverty and this country is in serious threat total collapse right now with the national debt at 16 Trillion.

National Defense is the job of the federal government and it does not matter one bit if you disagree with any war or weapon or system that the government has implemented - read the constitution - you will see what is and is not the job of the taxpayer. Art is not even mentioned. If you truly do are passionate about it you will make it happen. You do not deserve art if you are not willing to work for it yourself. You are not a princess - grow up and be responsible and accountable for what you want and for making it
05:12 PM on 09/06/2012
Right--the millions of dollars in aid sent to Israel and Egypt are necessary for life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for Americans too. Taxpayers are in poverty and the United States is in a sharp decline exactly because of corporate totalitarianism and empire-building, NOT because of the arts.
05:49 PM on 09/06/2012
Also, I'd like to know if you supported TARP, the taxpayer-supported bailout for investment corporations.
photo
larysa
Fight for your freedom by staying informed
06:40 PM on 09/08/2012
We should not be bailing out investment corporations. We should hold them accountable. If they wish to gamble then they need the money to cover their debts. Look at Bershire Hathaway. You can have investment corporations that are responsible.
11:44 AM on 09/05/2012
Part 1:
Funding for federal programs "comes off the back of the working man" who pays heavy taxes. The constitution does not state that anyone has any right to have their happiness funded by taxpayers - it clearly states that we have the right to PURSUE happiness. When this fact is pointed out to them, they jump to the conclusion that "we hate art and are stupid" and then they take comments out of context and are either too stupid to comprehend the facts that are presented or they play stupid by convenience and spew back something that doesn't even remotely resemble what was presented thinking we'll believe they are justified in demanding what they want.

If anyone is passionate about a cause, they do not need tax dollars to support it. They will figure out how to make it happen and in doing so will enhance the creative process.
No, I'm not stupid and yes, I do understand just how important art is not only to the artist, but to the community. I also know that art does not have to be funded by taxpayers to thrive because I am involved with a program that is not supported by tax dollars. It is supported by volunteers who have built a strong community and provide art to the public. That is how I know it can work without being a burden to hard working people who cannot afford any more taxes.
See the post following for part 2:
10:21 AM on 09/05/2012
2006 NEA budget: 121 million dollars
2006 private donations to the arts: 2.5 billion dollars.

It's definitely a minuscule cut in the grand scheme of things and wouldn't even make a dent in the federal budget, but at the same time it won't really make a difference in the arts either. Let's also not forget, it's not the "best" artists that are helped by the NEA, it's the artists best at filling out grant applications.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jools6009
Compassion is radical
02:07 PM on 09/07/2012
Totally unsupported by the facts, "Let's also not forget, it's not the "best" artists that are helped by the NEA, it's the artists best at filling out grant applications." Total Rubbish.

I have served on many grantmaking panels and I can tell you Eric doesn't know the facts. On all of the awards and grants panels I've served on, I can say most if not all of the artists receiving money from the NEA are excellent artists.
07:34 AM on 09/05/2012
Could someone explain why taxpayers should fund "art?" While I appreciate many forms of art and am a supporter of our local symphony and symphonic chorale, I can't see where taxpayer money should be spent on this.
09:24 AM on 09/05/2012
There is a misunderstanding of the "arts". We aren't just talking about the gov't sponsoring painters and symphonies. The arts also include promotion of cultural heritage and history, promoting language learning and literature, journalism and media, some aspects of sociological enquiry, etc. The arts are about creating an intellectual and emotive dialogue across a society that has the expressed outcome of opening people up to themselves and their communities around them. I can mostly speak from a heritage perspective where our goal is to promote a public knowledge of our nation's own past (and even global past). This is crucial because it not only creates a society with a better opinion of themselves, each other, and the world but also involves real community participation in creating that type of knowledge. For example, community archaeology projects give people hands on access to their own pasts and often result in a new emotive respect for the history and diversity of their community. This has the practical effect of making a community feeling like they are part of something bigger, rather than the detached nihilism that one feels after watching the news or watching a political convention. For me, those things seem to set people apart rather than bring them together. That is why the arts is good for a society and should be funded by the government. The private sector or donations alone cannot fill that function because they have more of a vested interest in manufacturing the outcome of their investments.
12:11 PM on 09/05/2012
An interesting response and I thank you for it. However, I would shudder to think that the taxpayers should fund journalism and the media -- those are functions in society that may report on culture, but in and of themselves are not "culture." I do appreciate you pointing out the larger scope of the arts to include historic preservation and other aspects of history, but having been stationed in the USSR during the Communist era I have seen what happens to the "arts" when the Government controls them. They cease to be art and become exactly what you describe in your last sentence -- the Government has a vested interest in manufacturing the outcome of their investments.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Howard Latchford
05:01 PM on 09/08/2012
Zsilvia, it seems you want taxpayer funded arts so people can feel better about themselves. This is not at all a normal government function. When a government no longer knows what it is doing, it starts trying to do everything.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mackenzie Lambert
06:33 PM on 09/04/2012
Romney goes to Israel and throws the world "culture" around. Comes back to home to try to kill a big part of our culture. Gee, thanks!
04:10 PM on 09/04/2012
I doubt 95% of the people that throw their hands up in horror that the federal govt might consider shrinking a budget even understand what the economics involved... read up folks.
btw most likely will not be voting for Romney so pump the brakes

http://www.nea.gov/pub/how.pdf

ie. The financial statistics differ by
art form and change from year to year, but in
2004 about 44 percent of the income generated
by American arts organizations came from sales
or the box office. The rest was donated—
overwhelmingly from the private sector.
Only about 13 percent of arts support in the
U.S. came from the government, and only about
9 percent from the federal government
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cjs82
It used to be the Republicans promoting equality.
03:22 PM on 09/04/2012
“Culture may even be described simply as that which makes life worth living.” - T.S. Eliot

Romney and the GOP, essentially, want to take away our reason to live.
11:23 AM on 09/04/2012
Hate to confuse the issue with facts but:
The brain has two separate functions going on, one is the expansive or creative, while the other is the logic based.
You cannot have an explicit action without a tacit beginning.
To deny stimulation to one side of the brain, is denying the full capacity of potential output.
We have become a culture of extremes, either right or left pulling farther apart. This is fundamentally wrong, reality lies somewhere in the middle at the point of balance. Look up the word homeostasis, "(2 the maintenance of equilibrium within a social group, person, etc" THIS is the natural order of things.
Sua Sponte
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Howard Latchford
05:05 PM on 09/08/2012
Both Wings, how did we manage to make for almost 2 centuries before we had federally-funded art?
12:45 AM on 09/04/2012
We're all Ai Weiwei now.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jane Harris
09:42 PM on 09/03/2012
Soulless.
02:25 PM on 09/03/2012
As a Bachelor of Fine Arts, this makes me want to puke.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NoraAnneMarie
Not here to be obstinate.
01:15 AM on 09/04/2012
As one who just graduated 3 months ago with a BFA, it makes me want to cry.
04:57 PM on 09/04/2012
Hi Kelly,

I am a symphony musician and university music professor, so I share your frustration with how the Arts funding for education across the country is losing ground. However, I agree w MR that it is not necessary for the federal government to fund careers in the arts. This isn't to say the arts are unnecessary or unimportant, or that the careers of artists and performers are either (I am one), but that they should be funded by something other than the federal government.

Arts education is different, because public education is funded by state and local governments. Arts education funding is debate for state governments, but this is a different debate than US taxpayers funding the NEA.

My orchestra receives little government funding. Amongst sponsors of the orchestra, I have never heard federal government agencies like the NEA mentioned. I wish I could say I new for sure the %, but I need to dig. There are state agencies we receive grants from, but the majority of our funding comes from ticket sales (around 50%), corporate sponsors, and individual donations. All people who chose to personally take responsibility to fund our orchestra. I love that!

I hope we as artists will never have to depend upon federal government to fund our careers. There are patrons everywhere willing to support great art, music, dance. Good luck to you in your career as an artist. It is incredibly difficult, but so very rewarding and worth all of the hard work.
09:06 AM on 09/05/2012
Well said, however wouldn't you agree that if the government played more of a role in the promotion and sponsorship of the arts the culture quality of our nation would increase? I've just moved from the UK, where there is quite a bit of such funding and it is one of the sticking points of national pride. I am not just talking about the BBC, funded through a small voluntary fee to keep it at a high standard. There are other organizations, such as the Arts and Humanities Research Council, that ensure a high level of quality and diverse culture of respect for a wide degree of arts programming and even careers. For me this bled into my own field of archaeology and the heritage sector, which of course is not what people think of when they hear "arts". I am in the business of promoting and curating a public knowledge of local history and pride which is directly funded by arts councils in the UK. This should be the model here in the U.S., not just to give me a job. The government should have a vested interest in guaranteeing public access to all of these things because ultimately the media is ineffective in this regard and an objective body leads to a more refined and educated nation that is more civil to itself and stronger when dealing with the rest of the world. We should be bringing the world together instead of killing them abroad.
01:42 PM on 09/03/2012
The first question to ask is what are we doing to save the arts? I have a bachelors in music education and I personally don't think we do enough to promote the arts and arts education as a whole. Many schools do not have field trips to go see the art museums or the local symphony as much as they used to. Also we don't promote ourselves enough. Advertising for concerts is minimal.

The biggest problem in arts education is relevancy. Lets compare athletics and high school band. Look at the crowd of a basketball game. Who do you see? You see people out of the community on top of students and family members of the players. The vast majority of the crowd at a band concert are family members of the band. In college the only time I saw people who were not "obligated" to be there was when I went on a tour in Russia. We need the community there to support us in our endeavors and not be annoyed when we show up at the door with a sales brochure for cheese and sausage.

We have to individually save the arts. We cannot depend on government to be the only source of money.

With PBS, I have made my contributions in the past and will do so in the future. What about you?
04:35 PM on 09/03/2012
The first question is - why do you think the federal government is going to "save the arts?"

The arts existed without any government interference for many many years.

The biggest problem is not relevancy - it is that there are people who deny that this country is in serious threat of failure and they don't care - all they care about is what they want.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
edwardia39
06:47 PM on 09/03/2012
The arts employ tens of thousands. You know not of what you speak when it comes to the arts. If funding for arts AND sports were cut then we could talk. Fact is, the " team" effort is there with the arts just as much as with sports. The arts help develop critical thinking skills. Music in fact is proven to help with math ( an area the US is falling behind in, at an alarming rate) Funding for the arts helps keep many people employed. Not every student has a sports aptitude some need the arts to help them excel. I could go on. Perhaps you get the picture.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NoraAnneMarie
Not here to be obstinate.
01:22 AM on 09/04/2012
... But... but... did you read this article?