Should Congress be spending tax payer money to finance artists and art? If so what Justification is there to take the peoples money and to give it to National Endowment of Arts?

<font color="#ffccff">I voted no, because it is not the function of (or the business of)the US Federal Government to finance this kind of stuff. It is just one of many areas that Big Government has pushed itself into to justify controlling all money.

</font>

[ 03-13-2003, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

I voted YES - Sir Humphrey made me do it [img]smile.gif[/img]

From :Yes Prime Minister

Jim Hacker (answering a group of actors re funding requests) : "Well, of course we do what we can. There are many calls on the public purse: inner cities, schools, hospitals, kidney machines..."
Actress one: "...tanks..."
Actress two: "...rockets..."
Actress three: "...H-bombs..."
Jim Hacker: "Well, we can't really defend ourselves against the Russians with a performance of Henry V."

Bernard Woolley: "Isn't it a bad idea to be associated with actors? I mean, their job is pretending to be what they're not and if you're seen with them, well, people might realise....."
Jim Hacker: "Go on, Bernard."
Bernard Woolley: "Well, I......I mean not realise, might suspect.....might think that your were....not that you were pretending, I mean entertaining....What was it you wanted to speak to Bill about?"

<font color="#ffccff">I don't suppose you could reply on topic with a serious reasoning? Its nice that you watch so much TV and all, but I was hoping for something from reality, not your entertainment venue.</font>

LOL - I am touched [img]smile.gif[/img] . Still, if you had watched the actual episode of the show and READ my reponse I SAID that I agreed with Sir Humphrey. If you want to go and reserach the episode you can learn more abour Sir Humphrey's arguments on the pro-funding side - real arguments AND entertaining.

I didn't quote Sir Humphrey you will note - I quoted what I thought were a couple of more humourous quotes from that episods to add some topical levity.

Thank you for your concern though and your direct forms of communication - have a nice day [img]smile.gif[/img]

<font color="#ffccff">And the odds anyone here in the USA (the country of the topic) has any knowledge of that particular show is????? How about supplying something that will be understood by everyone and not just your neighbors? Please?

Edit: at your request I re-read your post...and all I can see is that your reply says...You voted Yes because someone called Sir Humphrey made you. That carries no usefull information for me...sorry.</font>

[ 03-13-2003, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Yes. Of course. Beside, the money spend on the arts is peanuts - truly - compared to the other crap out there.

The arts might not be *roads* or *national defense* but they are certainly more important than 95% of the items money is spent by the government.

The most important thing is that the arts are a form of history that should not be allowed to die off. And, certain art form would if not protected. It would be sad if you absolutely could not go to a symphony or a museum and the *only* form of "art" we could enjoy were those that were PROFITABLE - such as all those wonderful movies [img]graemlins/1puke.gif[/img] The Blue Man Group and Broadway cheese are cool, but I'm glad the gov't shuffles a small amount of money to keep less profitable art forms around.

You personally might not give two hoots about the arts, but it is the society that benefits - the existence of art in the society is a social good.

How far does your theory go MagiK? Cut school arts and music programs? That's horrible - especially since participation in school music is shown to boost student's performance levels in EVERYTHING - including simple happiness. Cut museum spending? Surely not. That's like refusing to fund the teaching of history.

Google dear boy - Google - it can work wonders.

ROTFLMAO A good point well made Davros! When we in Britain make an important point using humour we call that 'satire' is it the same in Fostersland?

Did you know that 'Yes, Prime Minister' was Margaret Thatcher's favourite TV programme. It makes you wonder where she found the time to watch TV with all that waging war and destroying the unions and the introduction of the Poll Tax and stuff.

Of course I wouldn't normally consider the opinion of that old harridan any recommendation but on this occasion she was right. :D

Oops - edit to say something on topic. Art good - guns bad! But I expect everyone knew I would think that! :D

[ 03-13-2003, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Donut ]

<font color="#ffccff">So Timber, what you are saying..is that art would die unless the government subsidizes it? and yet you say the amount is peanuts....I see a conflict there.

I also fail to see how supporting some guy who sculpts religious figures out of feces or some woman paints her body and presses it against canvas need government support....can't they do those things on their own dime? I am pretty certain that feces may be easily optained at little cost and that it probably costs reletively little to paint yourself and lay on a canvas.

I think art would do quite well without the "governmental peanuts". I also agree with you about massive wastage in other parts of our government...this was just the topic of the day.

Edit: As for school art, we spend annually more than 100BILLION and maybe as much as 150 BILLION a year on schools. Of that amount it is estimated that up to 30BILLION is lost to waste fraud and abuse. I think that we are spending quite enough on schools, especially in light of the product we are receiving.</font>

[ 03-13-2003, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]