duga

Why should the public be taxed to fund a wall that won't do anything but stroke Trump's ego? It's bonkers.

__________________
Confusion will be my epitaph...

Frownland

It gives us and preserves a society worth living in. That's not to mention how insignificant a portion of the tax burden it takes up (less than half of a percent). If you want to talk about unnecessary taxing why don't we talk about the military fighting illegal wars? Why should people have to pay for that?

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

Goofle

I don't agree with the wall in principle. Or increasing the military force/fighting unjust wars @Frown.

I'd argue that the wall is different because it is supposed to achieve a goal. We can agree or disagree (probably agree, most likely) with the end result. Funding arts programs seems to go against the spirit of art itself.

__________________

duga

Honestly, I can respect how a lot of people don't see a need for the government to fund the arts. I tend to get snarky about it when the same people are all for funding ridiculous programs that will only add to our national debt and force people who are ideologically against these things to pay for it.

I see this as a chicken/egg problem. Artists need some kind of budget to create their art. This may come from investors or a benefactor, but unless you have some kind of portfolio to convince people to invest in you, how will you ever create anything? I think a small amount of money provided by the federal government is a fine way to encourage people not to fear pursuing a career as an artist. It also sends a message to the rest of the world that we are an open society that encourages personal growth and critical thinking. As pointed out above, this is a minuscule amount of funding. Cutting it off does little to help our national debt and only sends the message that you don't want people thinking too hard.

__________________
Confusion will be my epitaph...

The Batlord

Public radio and television are some of the only worthwhile stations you can get for content that isn't mindless, consumerist drivel. Get rid of them and the world is one step closer to being Walmart.

__________________

Goofle

And the government needs to fund these why? Most of the best TV and radio I consume doesn't come from government, but from the free market. As for art, I can't even think of a solely government funded musician I would entertain the idea of listening to.

__________________

Key

You're ****in' stupid. "I'd rather have a wall than art."

The Batlord

I find your idea of stimulating TV and radio to be dubious, but the vast majority of non-public TV and radio cater to the lowest common denominator, including many supposedly "educational" channels. Public radio and television have resisted government interference and are actually some of the least biased sources for most any kind of information, even if NPR does have a liberal bent, and since neither of them are dependent upon catering to morons they don't have to degrade themselves like CNN or Fox News or the History Channel do.

__________________

Mindy

duga

The UK frequently provides grants to musicians to aid them in making a name for themselves abroad. This is why we've had multiple "British Invasions". Like an English band? Chances are they got government aid. You don't think something like this would benefit American musicians?

__________________
Confusion will be my epitaph...