It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Reportedly Plans to Eliminate National Endowments for the Arts, Humanities

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 01:05 PM
link   
The arts.... that's like having a Champagne taste with a beer budget. Millions are flowing through this government sieve.

We have a host of things to pay down before we can afford Art....




posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: lostbook
We're in for an interesting 4 years...! I came across this article where it says that Donald Trump plans to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. This is based on the beluief that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for creative ventures especially, since private donors contribute to the Arts.



On 19 January 2017, The Hill, citing unnamed sources from inside President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team, reported that (among other cuts) Trump plans to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities: The National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities would be eliminated entirely. According to their website, the National Endowment of the Arts is: an independent federal agency that funds, promotes, and strengthens the creative capacity of our communities by providing all Americans with diverse opportunities for arts participation. The National Endowment for the Humanities describes their mission in the following way: Because democracy demands wisdom, NEH serves and strengthens our republic by promoting excellence in the humanities and conveying the lessons of history to all Americans. The Endowment accomplishes this mission by awarding grants for top-rated proposals examined by panels of independent, external reviewers.


I am speechless, ATS but somehow I feel that this is just the beginning of some shocking revelations brought to you and I by the Trumpster. If this comes to pass then what else could be on the chopping block? Planned Parenthood, Public Education, Healthcare? Trump is now in a position of immense power. Do you think he'll do what's right for the average American or his rich powerful friends? What says ATS?

www.snopes.com...
And the downside is???



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

Birds of a feather flock together. Ninety-Nine percent of us are not billionaires, so I doubt he can relate to us. His cabinet is filled with billionaires, which doesn't offer any real perspective or personal experience about the struggles of most Americans. Bringing back jobs to America is a great thing, but it's only one of the many problems facing Americans today.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 01:56 PM
link   
This issue is literally akin to living in a fantasy world vs living in the real world.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   
As a musician, Ive never seen a dime of that cash. I have no problem stopping funding for some rich folks pet projects. Because thats where it goes.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   
I see that most are pro-Trump on this issue. I think I already know this answer but what about other government funded programs such as NASA? What about other programs which he doesn't think benefit Americans are cut?
edit on 20-1-2017 by lostbook because: word add



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 02:55 PM
link   


Trump Reportedly Plans to Eliminate National Endowments for the Arts, Humanities


Good. No more extremist, excrement art.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   
This is a no brainer, 20 trillion in debt says of course we can`t afford to be funding endowment for the arts.

when we have to borrow to pay for the essentials to keep the country running then we need to cut the unnecessary spending.It`s simple finances,not rocket science.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
This is a no brainer, 20 trillion in debt says of course we can`t afford to be funding endowment for the arts.

when we have to borrow to pay for the essentials to keep the country running then we need to cut the unnecessary spending.It`s simple finances,not rocket science.


According to the article, cutting these specific programs will hardly affect the deficit:



As the Washington Post’s Philip Bump illustrated, removing these programs would make a remarkably small dent in federal spending (each received $148 million —0.003 percent of the federal budget — in 2016):


There is wasteful spending by our government but spending on the Arts isn't it.


edit on 20-1-2017 by lostbook because: word add



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: lostbook
I see that most are pro-Trump on this issue. I think I already know this answer but what about other government funded programs such as NASA? What about other programs which he doesn't think benefit Americans are cut?


Explain to me how funding artists to place crosses in jars of urine benefits the average Joe on the street?



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Good. Most are whacked out folks with no concept of the arts .



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: lostbook
I see that most are pro-Trump on this issue. I think I already know this answer but what about other government funded programs such as NASA? What about other programs which he doesn't think benefit Americans are cut?


Explain to me how funding artists to place crosses in jars of urine benefits the average Joe on the street?


It's not just about the Arts. It's also about what it means in the larger conspiracy picture. Arts and Education are always the first to be cut from budgets but what about other cuts or ending of programs that could affect you or your family?



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

OK.

Here's the deal: We live in a country that is $20trillion in debt. The harsh truth is that spending needs to be cut. The only other alternative is to take ever more from people. Either way, it "could affect" my family.

Paying for artists to slap a couple of stark white canvases on a wall, for example, is not nearly as important as other programs. So, yes, I would rather art funding get cut before those other things.

What makes an artist who calls stark white canvas "art" more deserving of government subsidy than a veteran? Or maybe someone who has worked until retirement?



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: lostbook

OK.

Here's the deal: We live in a country that is $20trillion in debt. The harsh truth is that spending needs to be cut. The only other alternative is to take ever more from people. Either way, it "could affect" my family.

Paying for artists to slap a couple of stark white canvases on a wall, for example, is not nearly as important as other programs. So, yes, I would rather art funding get cut before those other things.

What makes an artist who calls stark white canvas "art" more deserving of government subsidy than a veteran? Or maybe someone who has worked until retirement?


I get your point. Artists don't deserve more than others just because they're artists. However Art is important to a society and culture. Without it, society becomes stagnant. Cutting these programs will have a minimal effect on the $20 billion shortfall. Arts and Humanities is just 0.003 percent of the federal budget — in 2016, according to the article....Why not cut something else with a more significant chunk of the budget which isn't all that necessary?
edit on 20-1-2017 by lostbook because: word edit



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   
I find it hard to believe that the only wasteful spending by the government is on Arts and Humanities.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

If the government wants to piss away tax payer money for art, then go ahead.

But only after every single veteran is taken care of first.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Irritating, but expected and NO the PRIVATE sector DOESN'T pay for it, they only USE artists with NICE buzz words like FREE Exposure and intern,then BOOT you before they have to pay then keep your work or just credit it to an in house artist since the are immune from being sued by poor people as admiralty law supports them not YOU(money).
3d artists that went to school with me were great technicians but ONLY one or 2 could draw well (Much less paint) It's THEIR world until a program can change a pencil sketch to 3d completely to model.
35.00 is the rate an hour for a working artist on the average.
edit on 20-1-2017 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
I would recommend withholding Billions of our taxpayer dollars from countries that don't like us, first.

Agreed. How about we not fund TF out of every Tom, Dick & Harry outside our borders? Food and medical aid in disasters is one thing (that's just being a good neighbor in general) but tossing out money to every government, pseudo-government and up & coming "new regime" group we like is a bigger waste of a hell of a lot more money than art is.

Humans naturally explore and create, it's hardwired into us. It's the pinnacle of what it means to be human in the first place, at least on the positive side of us. Supporting one of our non-violent traits isn't a bad route.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

Unnamed sources? Really?



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 08:58 PM
link   


If this comes to pass then what else could be on the chopping block?


Everything except the military and corporate welfare. I wonder how many artists will be on foodstamps thanks to this?

We are screwed.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join