Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Jan 2000 18:18:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2284 times
|
| |
|
|
> I couldn't find a single reliable source for figures, but in 1998 it seems that
> US art subsidies were around $100 million, but bringing up the defence budget
> <http://www.cdi.org/sc/javaclock.html> it seems that that is spent seven times
> over each day on missiles and other such toys.
>
> My point is - why pick on art when there are many more possibilities for
> saving money, many of which don't give as much pleasure as art can?
>
> I also find it peculiar that a country in economic boom should feel beligerent
> towards art in this way.
>
> If you were arguing that the money could be used for education or to fight
> against poverty, then I might agree with you.. as it is then a question of
> priorities. If it's a question of keeping art subsidies or paying less tax (34
> cents per person?) then I vote for art, but by all means employ good art
> commisioners!
I think this is a pointless argument, simply because a national defense
was FOUNDED in the Constitution. The NEA was not. Artists have somehow
survived since the beginning of time, and somehow, we seem to be in a
notion that the federal government has to subsidize it. I would rather
have my tax money going to something that would protect me from nuclear
missiles than from some two bit art piece Madonna with dung on it and
female parts around it.
We have spent over one trillion dollars on the war on poverty, and there
is little gain. The percentages of homeless,, etc. are still the same.
How much money will we spend until we realize that behavior needs to
change, not the amount of money being spent? 7 out of 8 dollars that
goes to the welfare system is spent on the bureaucracy that runs it, not
the people that are "poor".
I think most people have not realized the points that Larry and I are
trying to make. The government in which the US was founded on was never
meant to be what it is today. The NEA, and other examples, prove this
point for me day after day.
The military takes between 19-20% of the federal budget. Social programs
are from 54-60%, including Medicare, Social Security, etc. This is from
the tax form you get every year. (These numbers are from 1998, I can't
find my 1999 forms around right now.) With all this money being spent,
every problem should disappear, right?
Scott S.
>
> Richard
>
> (1) Lack of brick seperators and juniorisation excepted
--
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator/CAD Operator-Affiliated Engineers ->
http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| One thing I'd like to toss in here is the possibility that it is ok for local government to spend money on social programs (including art and schools). This is subject to the limitation that state and national governments don't control the local (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) I disagree with the sentiment that suffering creates better art, or that worthy art can only be created by those willing to suffer a bit for it. Are some of the amazing LEGO creations and sculptures on LUGNET not examples of worthy art created (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
