• 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

TeleKat

Banned
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
3,775
Location
Ask the NSA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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?
 
Nope. It could use reforms, but it should not be abolished in my opinion.
 
Hey TDS :2wave:

Would you mind providing your reasoning? :)

The grants and assistance the the NEA provided to Art schools, art exhibits, musicians, etc, and artists themselves are too important just to throw away and be left entirely up to private hands. Sure it should be reformed to cover more areas of arts, (I personally think it should even help fund "controversial art"), and needs reform to cut down on their controversies but all in all I dont think it should be abolished.
 
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?
Dump the NEA
Use the savings to pay down the debt, or invest it in by sealing off the Mexican border.
 
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?

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.
 
http://arts.gov/sites/default/files/2013-NEA-Annual-Report.pdf

The NEA’s fiscal year (FY) 2013 budget was $138,383,218. The NEA awarded 2,152 grants in nearly 16,000 communities in every Congressional district in the country. More than 38 million Americans, including seven million children and youth, attended a live arts event supported by the NEA. These events included approximately 70,000 concerts, readings, and performances and 1,600 exhibitions. Internationally, 74 U.S. professional arts organizations and more than 1,200 artists provided performances, exhibits, and other arts activities in 55 countries

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.
 
No, it does plenty of good work. However, that doesn't mean all of the projects it funds turn out to be worthwhile.
 
The grants and assistance the the NEA provided to Art schools, art exhibits, musicians, etc, and artists themselves are too important just to throw away and be left entirely up to private hands. Sure it should be reformed to cover more areas of arts, (I personally think it should even help fund "controversial art"), and needs reform to cut down on their controversies but all in all I dont think it should be abolished.

What kind of reforms would you propose? Countless reforms have been proposed and put into effect, what makes these different? Would you be open to it being done at a more local level? Is there a good reason for why it needs to be done at a federal level?
 
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.

What general principles?
 
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.

What general principles?
 
Dump the NEA
Use the savings to pay down the debt, or invest it in by sealing off the Mexican border.

As Redress pointed out, the NEA barely makes up .0036% of the federal budget. If your focus were truly on paying off the debt, wouldn't reducing the military budget, demilitarizing police, abolishing the DHS, etc. save much more money than removing an art program?
 
What kind of reforms would you propose? Countless reforms have been proposed and put into effect, what makes these different? Would you be open to it being done at a more local level? Is there a good reason for why it needs to be done at a federal level?

They already distribute 40% of their funding to the states to do what they want with it.
But i would in general, actually have no idea how to start with "reforms". Not an expert, just sharing my narrow and uneducated opinion on the matter. But when there is controversy within the organization then it does generally signal it needs some sort of reforms.
 
Don't even know what that is, will research it.

But, if a libertarian wants to abolish it, we should probably just keep it. /s

Also, the culture underpinning the arts can be pretty elitist by virtue of its' nature.
 
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?

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.
 
Dump the NEA
Use the savings to pay down the debt, or invest it in by sealing off the Mexican border.

With as little as is going to the NEA, I'm not sure anyone would notice. Besides with free trade, we can't completely seal the Mexican border. We could, but it sure wouldn't be good for the economy to do so.
 
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.

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.
 
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 don't see it as a useful expenditure

I'm ok with cutting it
 
As Redress pointed out, the NEA barely makes up .0036% of the federal budget. If your focus were truly on paying off the debt, wouldn't reducing the military budget, demilitarizing police, abolishing the DHS, etc. save much more money than removing an art program?

So? Its still not something the government has any business in. Let the rich artist minded art snobs fund it if they want to. Besides its a bargain at only .0036 of the federal budget and they would get complete say of who was or was not funded. Or let the NEA beg for funds like PBS does every day. Maybe they can sucker some poor old demented granny with a couple hundred cats, into funding their Cute Cat pictures from the Interwebs wing.
 
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.

You think its a good value. I think its a waste of money. We got budget problems and every dime helps, these turds have got to be flushed. The arts and croissant crowd ought to have to pay for their concerts and showings and galas themselves.
 
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?

IF you're an "artist" and you can't support yourself by selling your "art" to the public then you sux as an artist and the rest of should not be made to suffer by having to support your lazy ass.

Get a job, losers!
 
I see it as a good thing, in line with monarchical thought of financing art, philosophy, science, and histories. This is a good, centuries old tradition of using government power and influence.
 
As Redress pointed out, the NEA barely makes up .0036% of the federal budget. If your focus were truly on paying off the debt, wouldn't reducing the military budget, demilitarizing police, abolishing the DHS, etc. save much more money than removing an art program?

How about demilitarizing Obama's security detail?

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

How about local police? How much less are they worth than a common foot soldier. Do you think SWAT teams only need Level IIIa vests, a old shotgun and a revolver when storming an armed crackhouse?

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!
 
Back
Top Bottom