View Poll Results: Should We Abolish The NEA?

Voters
66. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, replace it with nothing.

    23 34.85%
  • Yes, privatize it.

    8 12.12%
  • Yes, localize it and let the states handle it.

    4 6.06%
  • No, keep it.

    22 33.33%
  • No, but it needs strong reforms.

    6 9.09%
  • Other

    3 4.55%
Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 155

Thread: Should The National Endowment For The Arts (NEA) Be Abolished?

  1. #31
    Guru
    Hamster Buddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 06:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,675

    Re: Should The National Endowment For The Arts (NEA) Be Abolished?

    Quote Originally Posted by Flamethrower View Post
    Keeping out illegal aliens who cost billions in lost jobs, lost taxes, and murder hundreds every years I feel to be an excellent investment.

    Americans are being Killed by Illegal Aliens everyday. The fact is there are 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens, more than the U.S. death toll of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. That's more than 30,000 Americans killed by illegal aliens since Sept. 11, 2001
    Index

    Enjoy!
    This static has some interesting background to it. Apparently, the way they came about this (because the government doesn't keep track of this sort of thing) is a report that 28% of people in federal prisons are illegal aliens.

  2. #32
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,916
    Blog Entries
    24

    Re: Should The National Endowment For The Arts (NEA) Be Abolished?

    Quote Originally Posted by TeleKat View Post
    I've heard many arguments, from both the left and the right, that the NEA should be abolished for a variety of reasons. Among them I have heard:

    -it is wasteful,

    -it turns art into cultural elitism,

    -it subsidizes obscene and pornographic art

    -it's unconstitutional.

    -it only funds "politically correct" art.

    What do you think? Should the NEA be abolished? If so, what should we replace it with if at all?
    Perhaps it is the NEA and programs like it that the average taxpayer thinks our government wastes 51 cents on the dollar.

    Americans Say Federal Gov't Wastes 51 Cents on the Dollar
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  3. #33
    Guru
    Hamster Buddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 06:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,675

    Re: Should The National Endowment For The Arts (NEA) Be Abolished?

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    I was thinking about which side to come down on with the NEA. Read your short post and I agree. If we had a surplus, funding these nice to have programs is one thing. With 18 trillion going on 19 and 20, perhaps its time only to keep the most necessary programs.
    HEY! Slow down! We're going on EIGHTEEN Trillion thank you very much! We're in bad enough shape, we don't need to be adding trillions onto the debt when we're not there yet!

  4. #34
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,637

    Re: Should The National Endowment For The Arts (NEA) Be Abolished?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    I say get rid of it, and privatize it. You know why? Think back to the greatest artists in history; Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Donatello... you know what they all have in common? They were funded not by the government but by private citizens. ?
    Excuse me, but when the de facto heads of state commission works of these individuals, you're walking a very thin line between private donation and state patronage. Likewise, if you're being commissioned by the Pope to do any project, you're essentially working with government.

    There have been countless examples of state patronage of the arts throughout history.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

  5. #35
    Guru
    Hamster Buddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 06:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,675

    Re: Should The National Endowment For The Arts (NEA) Be Abolished?

    Quote Originally Posted by TeleKat View Post
    Most great artists in history died miserable and dirt poor....
    That's because for whatever reason, a lot of great artist aren't great artist until their dead. Sadly, I think that "great" moniker, has less to do with any perceived skill, and more to do with death. The idea of what's rare and finite, you know? Like with the Renaissance though, all of there stuff was commissioned, so they were getting paid... Besides, I think we're getting a little too liberal on just what we call "art"

    How to Be Art

  6. #36
    Guru
    Hamster Buddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 06:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,675

    Re: Should The National Endowment For The Arts (NEA) Be Abolished?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Excuse me, but when the de facto heads of state commission works of these individuals, you're walking a very thin line between private donation and state patronage. Likewise, if you're being commissioned by the Pope to do any project, you're essentially working with government.

    There have been countless examples of state patronage of the arts throughout history.
    Ah, but the difference is that the money made when it comes to individuals is their own, it was not taken from someone. This is also why the Pope is different as again, money is not taken (well now adays it isn't anyways).

  7. #37
    Guru
    Hamster Buddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 06:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,675

    Re: Should The National Endowment For The Arts (NEA) Be Abolished?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    http://arts.gov/sites/default/files/...ual-Report.pdf



    Sounds like a pretty good value on the dollar. That budget is .0036% of federal spending(if I did the math right). If we cannot spend that small percentage of our overal spending on making the country and localities better places, we have major problems.
    The problem with the NEA isn't so much much how much money is spent or not, but the principal of the matter. Unless we're talking about a government run by bankers, the government shouldn't be involved in this sort of thing as it isn't their money. If we're ever to get our debt and deficit under control, what is most needed in this country is a rethink of the role of Government in our lives, understanding that the money that is spent is our tax dollars.

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    11-11-14 @ 06:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    82

    Re: Should The National Endowment For The Arts (NEA) Be Abolished?

    Every great civilization is characterized by the art it produced. Art patroned by the governing parties of almost all civilizations either by commissioned works for civic structures or by ruling classes for their own enjoyment.

    As a Democratic Republic, we don't have a ruling class unless you consider the constituency the ruling class. I think the NEA is a great way to promote art but it clearly needs some reform. What those reforms would be are a rather contentious point of debate.

  9. #39
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,916
    Blog Entries
    24

    Re: Should The National Endowment For The Arts (NEA) Be Abolished?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster Buddha View Post
    HEY! Slow down! We're going on EIGHTEEN Trillion thank you very much! We're in bad enough shape, we don't need to be adding trillions onto the debt when we're not there yet!
    It won't take that long to reach 20. Perhaps even before this president leaves office. What was it when he entered office? 10.5 trillion give or take a few billion. Now approximately 17.7 trillion. 7 trillion added in less than 6 years, I am sure if the president tries hard enough he can achieve 20 trillion by the time he leaves office.

    Now this has me wondering, how many presidents have doubled the size of the national debt.
    Wilson took it from 3 billion to 27 billion, he not only doubled the debt, he increased 900%. Throughout the 1920's the debt came down to a low of 16 billion in 1929. FDR took over in 1933 with a debt of 19 billion and when he died the debt was up to 258 billion. A 1,350% rise. The debt rose to 266 billion under Truman, not bad. Eisenhower added 20 billion to it, JFK added another 20 billion, still not bad. LBJ, the debt went from 306 billion to 353 billion, still within reason I suspect. Nixon add 122 billion upping the debt to 475 billion but nothing like Wilson or FDR.

    Ford, I suppose we should count him, the debt stood at 620 billion when Carter took over, 145 billion was added during Ford's short 2 plus years. Carter added another 287 billion in his 4 years. It is not worth figuring out the percentages from FDR thru Carter, none of them even doubled the debt.

    Now Reagan added almost 2 trillion, 1.950 trillion to be exact. An increase of 215%
    Bush the first added 1.207 trillion an increase of 42%, Clinton added 1.61 trillion a 40% increase. But Clinton did his 40% increase over 8 years vs. Bush the first 4 years. I suppose this makes Clinton a cheap Charlie, sort of.

    Bush the second added 4.35 trillion over 8 years, an increase of 77% and now Obama has added 7.7 trillion in less than 6 years and counting. If he didn't add another dime that would come out to a 77% increase. The same as Bush the seconds, almost double that of Bush the first and Clinton. But with 2 plus years to go I think Obama will have at least increased the debt by 90% if not doubling it.

    But the top three percentage wise is FDR with his 1,350% increase, he increased the debt more than 13 times more than what it was when he entered office. Wilson is in second place with his 900%, 9 time more than when he took office. But WWI and WWII along with the great depression are probably valid reason for such humongous increases. Then Reagan in third with his 215%. These three are the only presidents who at least doubled the debt to date. Obama will be number four on this list before his time has expired.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  10. #40
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:00 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,397

    Re: Should The National Endowment For The Arts (NEA) Be Abolished?

    Quote Originally Posted by TeleKat View Post
    I've heard many arguments, from both the left and the right, that the NEA should be abolished for a variety of reasons. Among them I have heard:

    -it is wasteful,

    -it turns art into cultural elitism,

    -it subsidizes obscene and pornographic art

    -it's unconstitutional.

    -it only funds "politically correct" art.

    What do you think? Should the NEA be abolished? If so, what should we replace it with if at all?
    I'm ok with it existing, but it is in no way critical, or even "necessary" in the true sense of the word, so I favor keeping it in place but only funding it in years of budget surplus.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •