Originally Posted by duga (Post 1800202)

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?

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1800209)

And I highly doubt that there would have been a punk movement in Britain if all of those guys weren't on the dole and living in squats.

Originally Posted by Goofle (Post 1800184)

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.

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1800190)

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.

Originally Posted by Kiiii (Post 1800188)

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

Originally Posted by Chula Vista (Post 1800235)

I personally don't like it or consume it, therefore it's not needed for anyone else.

Originally Posted by Goofle (Post 1800258)

Why does the government need to fund radio or the arts?