• 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!

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

Should We Abolish The NEA?

  • Yes, replace it with nothing.

    Votes: 20 35.7%
  • Yes, privatize it.

    Votes: 7 12.5%
  • Yes, localize it and let the states handle it.

    Votes: 4 7.1%
  • No, keep it.

    Votes: 17 30.4%
  • No, but it needs strong reforms.

    Votes: 5 8.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 5.4%

  • Total voters
    56
How about demilitarizing Obama's security detail?

I'm for that.

Do you think only the elites in Washington deserve military style firepower and modern protective gear?

Nice strawman, but no.

How about local police? How much less are they worth than a common foot soldier.

Not even going to dignify that with an answer...

Do you think SWAT teams only need Level IIIa vests, a old shotgun and a revolver when storming an armed crackhouse?

They shouldn't be storming crackhouses to begin with, and even so they don't need tanks and grenade launchers to do it.

Keeping out illegal aliens who cost billions in lost jobs, lost taxes, and murder hundreds every years I feel to be an excellent investment.

Link?

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.

What a load of bull****.

Immigrants Are Less Criminal Than Native-Born Americans - Reason.com
 
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 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. The Arts will survive without government assistance.

Edit: Oh and we don't need a propaganda arm for the President do we?
 
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. The Arts will survive without government assistance.

Most great artists in history died miserable and dirt poor....
 
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?

Not completely, I don't think it is in the purview of the federal government to have anything to do with supporting the arts, therefore I would abolish the NEA. I would however like to see a nation wide private foundation that has as its charter geared to the role of preserving existing art, promoting artistic endevors, and for funding new artistic endevors to the extent that their members critically approve of them.
 
If we were running a surplus that would be one thing. We are not so, dump it. Though on general principles it ought to be dumped anyhow. Its not the governments place to fund that.

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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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!
 
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.
 
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
 
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).
 
http://arts.gov/sites/default/files/2013-NEA-Annual-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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
To me, I think you're walking down a path that can very quickly go in a very bad direction when the government is paying for art like that. It's not long before the government is deciding what is and isn't acceptable in art.

I don't get that at all. There seems to be this idea that financial involvement necessarily means exercising control. It doesn't. If you write into the law to authorize the money that the distribution is content-neutral, then there's no room for that. The government is no more susceptible to abusing its financial contributions to something than a private company. I would even say less so, since a private company has a single unifying goal to make more profit, while our government has a lot of different goals. So why is censorship at the hands of wealthy private interests somehow better than censorship at the hands of government? Especially since the former is more likely than the latter.

Its been around since the Great Society of the 60s. The government has yet to start deciding what is and isn't acceptable art. Most countries have a publicly funded arts endowment. No more money than we spend on it, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Also this. It's been 50 years. How long is "not long"?
 
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. The Arts will survive without government assistance.

Edit: Oh and we don't need a propaganda arm for the President do we?


First, we are supposed to have a limited government and support of the arts isn't enumerated. Second, Hamster is right, the greatest of the greats were financed by individuals or the Church, not government. Keep in mind too that private individuals have funded some amazing works of art in the US. this would, I think, be a great testament to the high value we place on art. Stated otherwise, we don't need a NEA funded by the govt, we like art enough to do it ourselves - history indicates this is rare and I think we can be happy with this.
 
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.

Well, there you go. And most in fed prisions aren't there for trick or treating without a licence.
 
They shouldn't be storming crackhouses to begin with, and even so they don't need tanks and grenade launchers to do it.



Link?


What a load of bull****.

Immigrants Are Less Criminal Than Native-Born Americans - Reason.com

Why not sell crack, heroin, PCP, and Weed in veding machines inside public schools?

As far as illegals go:
The NRC found that the average immigrant household receives $13,326 in federal welfare and pays $10,664.00 in federal taxes. Thus, American taxpayers shell out $2,682.00 for each immigrant household.
Staggering Cost Of Illegal Aliens In America  

Your link uses a public opinion poll on how people in Utah feel about immigrants----

Time to put your boots on and clean out the barn.
 
Dump the NEA
Use the savings to pay down the debt, or invest it in by sealing off the Mexican border.
You cannot be serious .. It would - roughly - cost trillions to "seal" off a border .. and for what ?
The arts/arts? use up a million or so - I guess its a good investment .
I voted "other" .
 
You cannot be serious .. It would - roughly - cost trillions to "seal" off a border .. and for what ?
The arts/arts? use up a million or so - I guess its a good investment .
I voted "other" .

How about a compromise?

For the artists who need the fed grants and funds, let them work for so many weeks putting up better fences and barriers. They could also sit out in the desert and look for illegals crossing and dope runners. For each alien and drug mule they help capture, they get a certain amount of funds.

Win- Win.
 
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?

It's such a marginal expenditure and I believe there is a civilizational interest in supporting the arts. Keep it.
 
How useful is Michelangelo's statue of David?

Would you support breaking it up and using it for road fill?

It's nice to look at. Very good artisan ship

But ... One does not need a government endowment to create art. There are plenty of other sources of funding such as beautifying parks or government buildings
 
Back
Top Bottom