soccerguy315 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 this is horrible. I love arts as much as the next person here, but bigger government is not the solution to all problems. Everyone who supports this should read this: How Protectionism and Subsidies killed the French Film Industry http://www.reason.com/news/show/30691.html ... now, just replace "french film industry" with "american arts" seriously folks, government support is what we need... especially to keep it in the schools, i hope obama fixes this economy quick so he can move onto education reform, and get the arts back into the mix. That would be amazing for all of us. It would help out drum corps, it would help out all of the arts. Before you hope too much that Obama "fixes this economy quick" you should probably study some basic economics. Particularly the effects of running $1,200,000,000,000 federal deficits annually, and handing out millions/trillions in bailouts to failing industries. Our public schools can't even graduate students that can read a book and do algebra 2, both of which are significantly more important than being able to blow through something and make pretty noises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokumi Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 (edited) Support for the arts has nothing to do with "protectionism". I fail to see how adding more funding to supporting youth orchestras, summer band camps, or god-forbid drum corps would kill diversity. Protectionism implies that a country is eliminating foreign competition to protect markets for its own goods. No one is taxing anything trying to compete with American art programs and eliminating foreign competition. Hell, there is barely even competition because the market for arts programs is so dry in America. Since it is so dry, funding needs to come from the government to help the market become more known and more valued in our culture. Edited January 20, 2009 by Mokumi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 supoorting the arts at any level is an awesoime thing. you dont see sports cut over arts in schools do you? no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kickhaltsforlife Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 this is horrible. I love arts as much as the next person here, but bigger government is not the solution to all problems.Everyone who supports this should read this: How Protectionism and Subsidies killed the French Film Industry http://www.reason.com/news/show/30691.html ... now, just replace "french film industry" with "american arts" Before you hope too much that Obama "fixes this economy quick" you should probably study some basic economics. Particularly the effects of running $1,200,000,000,000 federal deficits annually, and handing out millions/trillions in bailouts to failing industries. Our public schools can't even graduate students that can read a book and do algebra 2, both of which are significantly more important than being able to blow through something and make pretty noises. honeslt, i don't understand the economy... it's all a bunch of made up #### anyway. The money we spend doesn't really exist. It's all fake, but it controls our life... funny isn't it. But i bet those kids would do a lot better in algebra 2 and reading if they took a music class. It's proven stuff man. i personally think there is not enough government interaction right now. The government turns their heads way too often. But i'm straying far off topic, so i'll stop here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soccerguy315 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Support for the arts has nothing to do with "protectionism". I fail to see how adding more funding to supporting youth orchestras, summer band camps, or god-forbid drum corps would kill diversity. Protectionism implies that a country is eliminating foreign competition to protect markets for its own goods. No one is taxing anything trying to compete with American art programs and eliminating foreign competition. Hell, there is barely even competition because the market for arts programs is so dry in America. Since it is so dry, funding needs to come from the government to help the market become more known and more valued in our culture. if there is no competition why do they need more money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soccerguy315 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 honeslt, i don't understand the economy... it's all a bunch of made up #### anyway. The money we spend doesn't really exist. It's all fake, but it controls our life... funny isn't it.But i bet those kids would do a lot better in algebra 2 and reading if they took a music class. It's proven stuff man. i personally think there is not enough government interaction right now. The government turns their heads way too often. But i'm straying far off topic, so i'll stop here. I agree that music is really important. It has been an important part of my life, and I wish more people had the opportunity to participate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CreativeType Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Although the NEA was a very controversial body to begin with, the gutting of that program has had a real (and really brutal) impact on the scope of arts projects across the country, especially nationwide projects in schools. Instead of funding for one school to develop a program and widely disseminate it for other schools to use across the nation, we have each school and each teacher struggling to come up with the skills, time, and funds to do these programs on a local level. If having a cabinet-level position can get some of these types of programs approved and launched more quickly than the NEA is able to do now (standard wait time for grant proposals is 12 months to 2 years), I am all for it. Additionally, it would help to have a "fall guy" if more controversial decisions need to be made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokumi Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 if there is no competition why do they need more money? Because the amount of private donors and private donations that is apparently supposed to be funding the arts in the first place is not enough to maintain these programs. It has nothing to do with foreign competition. Whoever heard of a French youth orchestra coming to America and stealing all the funding from American youth orchestras? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corps-mudgeon Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 this is horrible. I love arts as much as the next person here, but bigger government is not the solution to all problems.Our public schools can't even graduate students that can read a book and do algebra 2, both of which are significantly more important than being able to blow through something and make pretty noises. I agree, but would also like to point out that if our public schools taught our constitution, the people posting here in support of the idea would understand that stuff like this is contrary to the intent of the constitution until the amendment process is followed to allow such stuff. I don't know how one can discuss the impact of a political act without talking politics, but here goes. Limited government is fundamental to the concept of personal freedom. Empowering government puts choices about us in the hands of others. Has anyone ever had anything good to say about a government bureaucrat? I find it astonishing to hear people applaud the idea of giving the force of law to a bureaucracy's decisions about art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troon8 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 (edited) this is horrible. I love arts as much as the next person here, but bigger government is not the solution to all problems.Everyone who supports this should read this: How Protectionism and Subsidies killed the French Film Industry http://www.reason.com/news/show/30691.html ... now, just replace "french film industry" with "american arts" Before you hope too much that Obama "fixes this economy quick" you should probably study some basic economics. Particularly the effects of running $1,200,000,000,000 federal deficits annually, and handing out millions/trillions in bailouts to failing industries. Our public schools can't even graduate students that can read a book and do algebra 2, both of which are significantly more important than being able to blow through something and make pretty noises. Creating government funded opportunities for proffesional artists, (ala the NEA,) and encouraging arts funding in education might both fall under the realm of a Secretary of Art, but in terms of the latter, I can say without overstatment that art was pretty much the only thing that kept me (and surely many other teenagers,) going to school when I was one of those kids who didn't know how to do Algebra 2. It reached a point where my family was quite clear that if I didn't bump up my math and English grades, no more arts for me. And by hell, I learned that Algebra 2 and read those books I hated for English. If you seriously think that the only thing people learn from being involved in a school music program is "how to blow through something and make pretty noises," then well... polite words fail me. "Critical Evidence: How the Arts Benefit Student Achievement" Edited January 20, 2009 by troon8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts