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: 3
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Five maybe.
HAVE YOU ever tried to APPLY to THAT?




posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: lostbook



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):



$148 million here, $148 million there - every year, it adds up. The USA is DEAD BROKE, when you are broke, you have to pinch pennies everywhere you can. Obviously we need much bigger cuts, but at this point, anytime government can cut spending anywhere, it is a blessing.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 09:11 PM
link   
I sure hope he did. An easy cut.

Find a patron if one wants to art. The art if you can call it that I've seen the past 20 years is atrocious.

I know Podesta is into weird naked drawings, I'm sure he would fund a "modern" art project or two out of his pocket.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

Yes, and I hear this argument as soon as someone points out the one I have made.

Art is important to society and culture, but it will survive without government funding. It always has before.

In fact, it may be that artists will have to create art that satisfies the audience now instead of spending all their time intentionally trying to provoke it which is where things are trending.

And, of course, when your budget is struggling, you cut everything you don't need. You don't simply say, "Hey, I can cut this other things that hurts way more people, but we can keep this frivolous thing over here ..."

For one thing, when you are gouging the taxpayers and cutting things that really do hurt them more immediately and then turning around and propping up artists who make up such a tiny and specialized segment and whose work so very few of the general population have much to do with, it looks really, really bad.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: lostbook

Yes, and I hear this argument as soon as someone points out the one I have made.

Art is important to society and culture, but it will survive without government funding. It always has before.

In fact, it may be that artists will have to create art that satisfies the audience now instead of spending all their time intentionally trying to provoke it which is where things are trending.

And, of course, when your budget is struggling, you cut everything you don't need. You don't simply say, "Hey, I can cut this other things that hurts way more people, but we can keep this frivolous thing over here ..."

For one thing, when you are gouging the taxpayers and cutting things that really do hurt them more immediately and then turning around and propping up artists who make up such a tiny and specialized segment and whose work so very few of the general population have much to do with, it looks really, really bad.


True. I see this as an Artist myself. My feeling is this: While people are cheering him on right now with moves such as this, what happens when Trump starts removing other privelages, or freedoms he deems not necessary? Or does things that he feels is for our own good? This feels like dangerous territory we're entering with Trump



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

Defunding Planned Parenthood comes to mind, with no easy access to birth control pills for the poor, which may add more poor mothers and children to the American woes.

But as an artist myself, I also believe that "art matters" and it will endure. Perhaps the very rich will divert some of their $s to build new theatres and opera houses or fine art programs as they have done in the past.
edit on 01CST12America/Chicago026121231 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Neither should be happening, depending on how it is happening.

If you're referencing tax subsidies, though, that's not the same thing as giving away money already taken from taxpayers. It's a logical fallacy to espouse the belief that tax breaks are the same as spending tax dollars. If the government never takes the money, it isn't ever theirs to give.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Republicans always do this. Trump is just doing what those savages always do; Bush did the same thing when he got in office in 2001.

Cut things that affect poor people and rights of minorities, unions, environmental standards, typical barbaric republican…and soon he will cut taxes on the rich like all republican do when they get in office.




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join