Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by petite, Apr 8, 2011.
msnbc.com Video Player
He so eloquently describes why congress needs to support the arts!
He can fiddle while Rome burns.
Presumably there was some planning leading to this interview. I don't understand why Spacey's point about a $29B return on investment didn't have some graphic or another type of visual aid.
To both Spacey's and Matthew's larger points regarding a traditional Republican "downtown boosterism": say what? Cities have been Democratic zones forever (and not always to the cities' advantage). Republicans are much more the suburban gated-community types than straphangers or sidewalk strollers: just look at how they view public transit or high-speed rail.
I support the arts and truly believe it's been one of the most important influences of my life. However with the current state of the US economy I support curtailing funding to the arts because We don't have the money right now!
The arts get private donations to help sustain them that other programs do not receive. It's a tough decision but if it's a choice between the Metropolitan Museum that raises millions of dollars a year through private grants and donations or benefits for veterans or their families or other programs that do not get the money that they need to continue the choice is clear to me.
I'm equally appalled by wasteful government spending but I think everyone needs to realize that we can't keep spending money that we don't have for luxuries when we don't have the payment for the necessities.
I hope I live to see this economy turn around again but it's not going to happen without some concession and compromise.
I remember when I was a student at Columbia and I went with a friend to a lecture given by someone from The Metropolitan Museum and he said... "We get millions of dollars a year from private funding to sustain the museum we don't need your lunch money as your entrance fee to visit the museum... give whatever you can so that you can enjoy and be enriched by what we have." I've always remembered that and that is why I'm a patron to the Museum today.Membership | The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Unless we want to see our taxes rise substantially we have to figure out what we have to compromise on right now.
So if and when programs do loose government funding I hope that you and Kevin Spacey will support them during this interim.
Metropolitan Museum Of Art — Luxist
I'm 50/50 on this. Arts funding has been cut in the UK too and while I see the reason behind it, I think it also brings money into the country. Take Hollywood for example, America must make a fortune from the film industry alone. So there is something to be said for providing support to the arts as long as it's not too much and deprives healthcare etc of much needed funds. As the good Nudeyorker said, they get private donations and can sustain themselves on those.
Two areas where funding the arts with US Tax money is imperative (in my humble opinion) are:
1. All public schools should offer music, theatre, and art classes making them requirements for graduation.
2. If you get rid of the National Endowment for the Arts, you kill off some rather amazing symphony orchestras. For example, all of the musicians who currently make up the Utah Symphony Orchestra also have second jobs just to stay alive. These are professional musicians who comprise one of the longest, continuously recorded symphonies in the USA. Only the late Arthur Fiedler who conducted the Boston Pops from 1930 until he died 50 years later eclipsed Maurice Abravanel as the longest, permanent director of ANY US Symphony. Abravanal showed up in SLC by invitation to "develop" a city orchestra. He turned it into the most recorded symphony orchestra in the United States. Even more amazing, under his direction the Utah Symphony became a premier world class organization. And they were good! But he could have never done it without the assistance of government grants and the eventual annual subsidy of the National Endowment for the Arts. Wiping out the NEA will kill symphony orchestras in St. Paul/Minn, Seattle, Portland, Atlanta.
But then again, who needs a symphony orchestra accompany a world class pianist to play a live performance of Ravel's Gaspard de la nuit when we have Lady Gaga?
Of course we should continue with Federal funding of the Arts. Cutting it won't make a bit of difference for the debt of deficit. Total Arts funding in 2009 was 350 Million dollars. Our deficit is Trillions. It'd be like cutting pennies.
I'm not saying it should be completely eliminated but certainly some cuts have to come to the arts particularly those that have other venues for grants and donations. When you look at the rest of the laundry list under discussion. It's obvious we can't keep spending the way we have been.Key Amendments to House Bill H.R.1 - NYTimes.com
Arts funding is not in any way the source of any of our overspending madness. Domestic discretionary spending has been fairly stable as % of GDP. It's healthcare and "defense" that are our runaway spenders.
Arguing we should cut the arts is like taking pains to eat a well-balanced nutritious fresh-cooked meal while you're losing gallons of blood from a puncture to your radial artery. Address the thing that's killing you!
Thank you, I couldn't have said it better.
I don't disagree that funding for the arts is the source for this countries overspending but the bigger picture is... If we wanted to permanently freeze the debt held by the public at the today's level is 62% of GDP we need to immediately cut spending by 35% or about $1.2 trillion, according to the Government Accountability Office. And those cuts would need to be permanent from hereon out.
Consider that in 2010, all of discretionary spending including defense totaled $1.35 trillion. In other words, there needs to be deficit reduction across the board. Even permanently cutting $1.2 trillion today wouldn't be the end of the story. The public debt at 60% is still well above the country's historical average which is below 40%. So more cutting would need to occur in subsequent decades.
It's not just going to be the arts that are going to suffer but I'm afraid education and other vital programs as well. My only point to this conversation (and it's only my opinion) is that the many programs in the arts are going to have to learn to rely more on private funding.
So many good things have been said in this thread that it's hard to follow up. As being a major supporter of the arts in general, it gets to me every time I see the budgets for these programs continually face the chopping block in our school systems. While so many things in the world teaches kids the consequences (or in some ways the diabolical benefits) of destruction, the arts teaches children the importance of creative expression and being able to articulate without resorting to barbaric practices. Eliminating the arts is a recipe for disaster. What good is teaching future generations nothing but the basics and in the process creating a society of soulless drones who lack the ability to think outside the box?
Say this yesterday on HBO. Perhaps there is hope, if there is just a little bit.
YouTube - Brave New Voices 2010 - "Love Letter To Albuquerque Public Schools"
He's probably got a bee in his knickers cos we no longer have a Labour Govt and he was very pally with T.Blair.The UK has always been over generous with grants and tax breaks for the arts,but we ALL have got to make sacrifices and as the armed forces are losing men and equipment so the arts have got to take it as well....MORE SO.