Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
prachinsa22
147 Followers
jsmita0304055
761 Followers
Arsalan Mushtaq
364 Followers
alan martin
503 Followers
nosanosae66
178 Followers
Rhonda Granda
434 Followers
Lokesh Singh
139 Followers
Jack Johnson
245 Followers
Hector Levine
240 Followers
Rocco Penn
7532 Followers
norman619Apr 11, 2011
So art's can't survive w/o government funding? I call bulls**t.
grammerpantsApr 11, 2011
Many programs can't, doesn't mean they aren't worth funding.
norman619Apr 11, 2011
Then they should be funded locally. The locals value them then they can chip in to fund them. I give to artists who's work I value and enjoy and only those.
grammerpantsApr 11, 2011
Good for you. I enjoy that you think that would work, but it doesn't.
norman619Apr 11, 2011
Sorry but if the people don't feel they are worth donating money to then why should government do it?
grammerpantsApr 11, 2011
People wouldn't fund roads, based on the fact that they don't use them, or public education, if given the choice. That doesn't make them a service without value.
norman619Apr 11, 2011
Roads are vital to the functioning of any country so government should be in charge of maintaining the public roads. Public roads are a necessity. Public education is failing miserably so I wouldn't hold it up as an example. In fact maybe government should give up on maintain the public school system and hand families vouchers to allow them to go to any school they like. Art is NOT a necessity but a luxury so there really isn't any justification for government to fund it.
robohitlerApr 11, 2011
For someone to donate money to an organisation they need to know about it in the first place. For them to know about it there'll generally need to be some marketing and touring, which is where government funding is usually most useful. It's not generally about sustaining successful acts that already have patrons or earn enough to survive, it's about stimulating the arts at the grass-roots level.
robohitlerApr 11, 2011
Also, government's role is not solely to keep basic infrastructure working. It's to maintain a healthy, well-rounded society, which includes many things ranging from arts funding to conservation of historic monuments and nature reserves.
rethreadApr 11, 2011
I call your bulls**t and raise the people's Republic. So Penthouses should pay their dues. Mansions. Corporations.
Churches.
Arts or tax free churches? What will it be.
Arts
http://i.imgur.com/2ZLCA.jpg
or
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/hiroshima-2f.jpg
I. Am pro choice. So choose.
norman619Apr 11, 2011
You are funny. You assume I support the things you mentioned. Maybe you should ask before assuming. Government shouldn't be supporting churches. Government, federal anyway, should be limited to maintaining vital services required for the proper functioning of government. Everything else should be left to local governments and the people themselves.
"I. Am pro choice. So choose."
This makes you sound like a childish douche btw.
kalvinbApr 11, 2011
That's what happens when you're all too selfish to spread the loss around. There's no reason everyone couldn't have just taken a 15% cut rather than shutting some places down entirely.
This is just the standard attempt to blackmail tax payers into paying more in taxes. Rather than being fiscally responsible and cutting back a notch, everyone wants to be greedy.
How much was funding raised in say the last 10 years? That's the real question.