• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Solutions for funding the Arts

Really? So...Mark Zuckerberg doesnt run Facebook? There arent people that control content and dictate direction? Yahoo isnt run by a CEO and doesnt have a board of directors dictating content and process (before and after the sale of the Yahoo to Verizon is completed)?

When did the CEO become the "owner", Vance? Rex Tillerson owned Exxon?
 
When did the CEO become the "owner", Vance? Rex Tillerson owned Exxon?
Using your example, wouldnt you call Exxon a 'conservative' company? Do you deny those three companies cited have a liberal bias, or for that matter, that all three of those companies CEOs are contributors to and supporters of HRC?
 
Using your example, wouldnt you call Exxon a 'conservative' company? Do you deny those three companies cited have a liberal bias, or for that matter, that all three of those companies CEOs are contributors to and supporters of HRC?

Using my example, would you say that Rex Tillerson "owned" Exxon or not?
 
I'm mixed on the whole funding for the arts thing. I do see a value in some of the PBS broadcasting but think others can and should be self sustaining. Take Sesame Street for example. They are a commercial juggernaut worth about $400,000,000.00. Why do they need public funding?
Sesame Street / Children's Television Workshop hasn't taken federal funding since 1978, when Republicans in Congress tried to jerk them around.

However, the PBS stations that show Sesame Street? They need federal funding. They aren't raking in the big bucks. And it's stations in rural areas that will bear the brunt of the cuts, and are most likely to go dark.


And since there are so many rules regarding the airwaves and cable/satellite companies, couldnt the providers be required to provide public access channels?
Yeah, that's not going to work.

First, cable and satellite companies will resist bearing the costs, and will obviously want to exert editorial control. They won't have any interest in putting any money into local news or other local content, which PBS stations usually provide.

Second, less than half of rural residents have paid TV. So who pays for the OTA station? Who staffs it? Who pays for the staff, the licensing?


Couldnt the equipment used to record and broadcast be donated and funded via private charity?
...yes, that's what would have to happen if we cut funding for the CPB. Stations in urban and reasonably affluent suburban areas will be fine, but stations in rural areas -- who are seeing state funds cut anyway -- will have a much more difficult time raising funds, and will likely go dark.

how much of THIS kind of **** gets public funding? Granted....thats Serbia...but we have the same kind of publicly funded inane performance art in America.
Errrrrmmmm.... Yeah, not so much.

This is the fall listing for NEA grants
https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/fall-2016-grant-announcement-state-listing-revised3.pdf

Dance companies, jazz in parks, Shakespeare in parks, museums, operas, concerts, film festivals, symphonies, colleges....
 
Using my example, would you say that Rex Tillerson "owned" Exxon or not?
No...but I would say he was a major voice in its operation as opposed to the average shareholder. Similarly...Zuckerberg owned Facebook and still owns a controlling interest in Facebook. His public offering just made a lot of people rich including himself (whm he made VERY rich. WalMart is a publicly traded company...but everyone acknowledges the Walton family 'owns' WalMart. But I see you are really twisted about that whole 'owned' thing.
 
No...but I would say he was a major voice in its operation as opposed to the average shareholder. Similarly...Zuckerberg owned Facebook and still owns a controlling interest in Facebook. His public offering just made a lot of people rich including himself (whm he made VERY rich. WalMart is a publicly traded company...but everyone acknowledges the Walton family 'owns' WalMart. But I see you are really twisted about that whole 'owned' thing.

So you agree that they don't "own" these companies.

I work for a global organization and our CEO is a donor to Democratic candidates. That does not make my company a liberal company, and as publicly traded company, we are also not owned by a liberal. We are owned by our stockholders.

The Walton family is the majority stockholder of WalMart. By contrast, Mark Zuckerberg only owns 24% of Facebook. He is not the majority owner.
 
Sesame Street / Children's Television Workshop hasn't taken federal funding since 1978, when Republicans in Congress tried to jerk them around.

However, the PBS stations that show Sesame Street? They need federal funding. They aren't raking in the big bucks. And it's stations in rural areas that will bear the brunt of the cuts, and are most likely to go dark.



Yeah, that's not going to work.

First, cable and satellite companies will resist bearing the costs, and will obviously want to exert editorial control. They won't have any interest in putting any money into local news or other local content, which PBS stations usually provide.

Second, less than half of rural residents have paid TV. So who pays for the OTA station? Who staffs it? Who pays for the staff, the licensing?



...yes, that's what would have to happen if we cut funding for the CPB. Stations in urban and reasonably affluent suburban areas will be fine, but stations in rural areas -- who are seeing state funds cut anyway -- will have a much more difficult time raising funds, and will likely go dark.


Errrrrmmmm.... Yeah, not so much.

This is the fall listing for NEA grants
https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/fall-2016-grant-announcement-state-listing-revised3.pdf

Dance companies, jazz in parks, Shakespeare in parks, museums, operas, concerts, film festivals, symphonies, colleges....
As of 2014, SS showed they received 4% of their total budget in federal grants. But that was just a 'for example'. As was pointed out...there are plenty of other shows that could become viable and independently profitable.

"There are a number of ways for artists to supplement their income and ease the financial burden that comes with being a working artist:

Grants or fellowships provide funds that can be used to pay the rent and other expenses, allowing the artist to work full-time at being creative. Grants are very competitive and the amount awarded, stipulations, and application procedures for each vary widely. Some are given to allow an artist to complete a specifically proposed project, others are unrestricted. Some are awarded strictly based on need, others as a prize given out as part of a competition. Some are open to application, others only by nomination.

In addition to private foundations, publicly funded arts agencies can also be a source of funding for artists. According to Americans for the Arts, in 2015, 35% of local arts agencies (LAAs) provided financial support to individual artists, and 30% supported both arts organizations and artists. (Here’s a directory of state arts agencies.)

Then there are artist residencies, which typically require an artist to spend time and space away from their usual environment and obligations. Residencies will often provide studio space, meals, housing, and travel and living stipends.

Tax, legal and health care services are sometimes available specifically for cash-strapped artists, either for free or at discounted rates.

Another way for artists to gain funding is to contact a nonprofit with a related mission that will serve as their fiscal sponsor. This allows artists to apply for grants and solicit tax-deductible charitable contributions under the sponsor’s exempt status."
Funding for individual artists | Artists | Individual Grantseekers | Knowledge Base | Tools | GrantSpace

Foundation Center offers a number of funding information resources geared toward artists:

Foundation Grants to Individuals Online is our searchable database of grantmakers that give to individuals. It is available by subscription, or to use for free at our libraries and Funding Information Network locations.

You will note...if you arent just interested in being wrong all the time...that I didnt suggest that all funding for the arts should be cut. I said it should be done differently where possible through private and commercial funding and where legit need was still evident...then looked at from a gov funding perspective. I was actually seeking dialogue, not just people like your self saying "un UH!" That **** just gets boring and it damn sure doesnt help solve any problems.
 
While the Arts are not so much a public good, the military is.

Ummmm, arts are one of the very few things that separates humans from most of the other animals on this Earth.

It's ginormous in it's importance.
 
So you agree that they don't "own" these companies.

I work for a global organization and our CEO is a donor to Democratic candidates. That does not make my company a liberal company, and as publicly traded company, we are also not owned by a liberal. We are owned by our stockholders.

The Walton family is the majority stockholder of WalMart. By contrast, Mark Zuckerberg only owns 24% of Facebook. He is not the majority owner.
As of today...right now...he owns 475 million of the total 2.1 publicly traded shares (and holds the interest and voting rights on the remaining unsold 640 million shares). If you dont think Mark Zuckerberg 'owns' Facebook and controls its direction and will until he chooses to step down...
 
As of today...right now...he owns 475 million of the total 2.1 publicly traded shares (and holds the interest and voting rights on the remaining unsold 640 million shares). If you dont think Mark Zuckerberg 'owns' Facebook and controls its direction and will until he chooses to step down...

As of now he owns 24% of the stock, meaning he isn't the owner and he can't unilaterally make any decisions.

But we're way off track here and I don't want to derail the thread so I'll apologize for taking it in a different direction.
 
People can privately donate to artists as much as they want. During the Renaissance, artists were almost always privately commissioned for their work if they were talented enough.
 
As of now he owns 24% of the stock, meaning he isn't the owner and he can't unilaterally make any decisions.

But we're way off track here and I don't want to derail the thread so I'll apologize for taking it in a different direction.
No worries. I was hoping the thread wouldnt turn into a political pissing contest. Whether you agree with public funding or not, there are fiscal realities in the country that at some point we either have to address or just give up and kick the can down the road letting future generations figure out how to deal with the messes we created. There needs to be discussion in all areas. Defense needs to be cut (while maintaining readiness). Social Security needs to be revamped. Infrastructure needs to be addressed. Lots of work to do.
 
No worries. I was hoping the thread wouldnt turn into a political pissing contest. Whether you agree with public funding or not, there are fiscal realities in the country that at some point we either have to address or just give up and kick the can down the road letting future generations figure out how to deal with the messes we created. There needs to be discussion in all areas. Defense needs to be cut (while maintaining readiness). Social Security needs to be revamped. Infrastructure needs to be addressed. Lots of work to do.

Agreed. Having discussions about budgets and cuts and where and what is healthy and what we need. I apologize for getting off that track in your thread.
 
As of 2014, SS showed they received 4% of their total budget in federal grants.
Nope... By 1981, they had stopped taking all federal funding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sesame_Workshop#Funding_sources

And lots of other PBS programs are nowhere near as lucrative as Sesame Street, which is why they go after funding. Shows like Frontline or NOVA don't have a lot of merchandising opportunities....


"There are a number of ways for artists to supplement their income and ease the financial burden that comes with being a working artist: Grants or fellowships provide funds that can be used to pay the rent and other expenses....
Dude? You're not telling me anything I don't know, or that arts and public broadcasting don't already know. You are literally suggesting that we replace federal funding with... funding sources that already exist.

Individual artists, arts organizations, public broadcasting stations all already go after state grants, private grants, corporate sponsorship, membership drives, fundraising drives and more.

Of course, relying heavily on private sources has its own pitfalls. Funders can often be capricious; some chase fashions, or push the organizations to do something trendy, or pursue off-message programs because some incredibly wealthy person heard that Tuvan throat singing is the New Hotness. Bigger funders are targets for many philanthropic entities, whose needs are increasing as public funding is increasingly cut. A handful of the "whales" invest in their own projects; e.g. "vanity museums" like the Broad Museum in LA, or Rubin Museum in NYC, which in turn compete for... wait for it... grants and private funding.

For example: If we eliminate the NEA and NEH, that permanently cancels $300 million in funding for the arts. That $300 million does not magically appear somewhere else.

It also has almost no effect whatsoever on the federal budget. Those two programs are literally 0.006% of the federal budget. These cuts are not about fiscal responsibility, they are ideological.

Public broadcasting also receives private funds -- and it's not enough. Again, states are cutting their own funding, not increasing it; and cutting the miniscule amount of federal spending does not magically free up state funds. If federal funds are eliminated, then that either puts more funding demands on private donors or, more likely, is going to lead to stations cutting back or closing up shop.


You will note...if you arent just interested in being wrong all the time...that I didnt suggest that all funding for the arts should be cut. I said it should be done differently where possible through private and commercial funding and where legit need was still evident...then looked at from a gov funding perspective.
Or....

You don't seem to know much about arts funding or public broadcasting. Which is fine, but if you're going to make suggestions, it might help to listen to someone who knows a bit about it, or at least do some research on your own to see how it works. Just a thought.
 
Nope... By 1981, they had stopped taking all federal funding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sesame_Workshop#Funding_sources

And lots of other PBS programs are nowhere near as lucrative as Sesame Street, which is why they go after funding. Shows like Frontline or NOVA don't have a lot of merchandising opportunities....



Dude? You're not telling me anything I don't know, or that arts and public broadcasting don't already know. You are literally suggesting that we replace federal funding with... funding sources that already exist.

Individual artists, arts organizations, public broadcasting stations all already go after state grants, private grants, corporate sponsorship, membership drives, fundraising drives and more.

Of course, relying heavily on private sources has its own pitfalls. Funders can often be capricious; some chase fashions, or push the organizations to do something trendy, or pursue off-message programs because some incredibly wealthy person heard that Tuvan throat singing is the New Hotness. Bigger funders are targets for many philanthropic entities, whose needs are increasing as public funding is increasingly cut. A handful of the "whales" invest in their own projects; e.g. "vanity museums" like the Broad Museum in LA, or Rubin Museum in NYC, which in turn compete for... wait for it... grants and private funding.

For example: If we eliminate the NEA and NEH, that permanently cancels $300 million in funding for the arts. That $300 million does not magically appear somewhere else.

It also has almost no effect whatsoever on the federal budget. Those two programs are literally 0.006% of the federal budget. These cuts are not about fiscal responsibility, they are ideological.

Public broadcasting also receives private funds -- and it's not enough. Again, states are cutting their own funding, not increasing it; and cutting the miniscule amount of federal spending does not magically free up state funds. If federal funds are eliminated, then that either puts more funding demands on private donors or, more likely, is going to lead to stations cutting back or closing up shop.



Or....

You don't seem to know much about arts funding or public broadcasting. Which is fine, but if you're going to make suggestions, it might help to listen to someone who knows a bit about it, or at least do some research on your own to see how it works. Just a thought.
And yet...
"Last year, Sesame Workshop had $121.6 million in revenues. Of that, $49.6 million came in distribution fees and royalties and $36.6 million in licensing of toys, games, clothing, food and such. In 2014, only 4% of its revenue came from government grants.
Despite being a taxpayer-supported nonprofit, Sesame Workshop pays its top executives fabulously well."
Big Bird Is Rich, So Why Does He Need Taxpayer Money? | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD
http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/132/132655731/132655731_201506_990.pdf?_ga=1.158731005.650004095.1469723584

You like to present yourself as this douchey know it all...but you really arent a know it all.
 
To a point, yes. Beyond that the only ones who benefit are military/industrial complex and pork hungry politicians.

I'll take the pork chops thank you.
 
Ummmm, arts are one of the very few things that separates humans from most of the other animals on this Earth.

It's ginormous in it's importance.

Art certainly is nice to have. Public good? Not really.
 
Back
Top Bottom