Note: Only responses from the participants should be posted here. The first round question is:

 

Using our tax dollars, Local, State, and National governments support the arts through grants, public art projects, and other expenditures. With rising government debt, is this a good use of tax dollars, who should decide what projects get funding, and under what criteria?

According to Robert Redford, "the National Endowment for the Arts...is being whittled away at every turn." Understandably so, Mr. Redford; budgetary constraints due to fiscal irresponsibility, new global threats, and failure to implement and develop environmentally friendly technology all result in the diminished financial support of certain initiatives that some may deem as less important. Yet conceptual support for the arts, I believe, will never die out. Again Redford says,

 

"Art, in all its forms, feeds and nurtures the soul of a society; provokes thought and debate; causes critical thinking; and fosters understanding of things foreign to our own immediate world. In the end, arts play a primary role in encouraging healthy tolerance of the diversity in any culture. And, in my opinion, that is something profoundly worthy of protecting. A culture or society that does not recognize arts as integral to its growth and well-being will not survive."

 

What we all seem to miss is the common denominator of art. Religions, such as Catholicism, have long supported, financially and conceptually, the development of art within the workings of the church. Masterpieces from Beethoven to Michelangelo are directly responsible from their religious enterprise.

 

Likewise, secular facets of culture have directly inspired truth, tolerance and cooperation between vastly different individuals. The theatre has brought us plays and musicals such as “Rent” and “Romeo and Juliet”, books like “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “Death of a Salesman” have touched millions, and cinema has brought us to a new age of media and art, where truth and tragedy are played out in graphic and poignant ways on screen.

 

We must ultimately decide what the cultural worth the Arts hold in our society. Is it really our government’s responsibility to encourage the Arts? The answer to that is yes. Encouragement through freedom of expression is the single greatest gift that our government can offer the Arts and the artists that aspire to create. Should our government financially encourage the Arts? This question, I would also answer yes, however, to a point. If we are so inspired by freedom and liberty through military might, and our government so bent on spending billions to destroy, then I would argue it ultimately has a responsibility to mend and to heal as well.

 

“Is this a good use of tax dollars, who should decide what projects get funding, and under what criteria?” These aren’t the questions that should be asked at this point, but rather, where is the financial burden of supporting the Arts being placed? And why have we as a society decided that our government is better at making decisions than the public?

 

I look at major “Arts” industries such as the music and movies industries, and I must ask “why do we rely on government so much, when there are thousands upon thousands of individuals sufficiently equipped financially to encourage their peers through grants and private endowments?” What is stopping Robert Redford from donating even 5% of his million dollar annual income to a private endowment for the Arts? Multiply that, and then we might be able to begin to answer the “who, what, and why.”

Note: Only responses from the participants should be posted here. The first round question is:

 

Using our tax dollars, Local, State, and National governments support the arts through grants, public art projects, and other expenditures. With rising government debt, is this a good use of tax dollars, who should decide what projects get funding, and under what criteria?

 

 

OK, a question: What if my opponent and I have the same opinion? Should I automatically take the opposite, since Alex has already posted his answer?

OK, a question:  What if my opponent and I have the same opinion?  Should I automatically take the opposite, since Alex has already posted his answer?

 

I think they said that if our opinions agree, it'll be more about writing style, flow, and abillity to pursuade.

I think they said that if our opinions agree, it'll be more about writing style, flow, and abillity to pursuade.

 

Does spelling count too?

Does spelling count too? 

 

 

you win

 

persuade

I believe that, in order to answer this question, one must strip away all the subjective arguments about whether or not the arts are "worth it," and get to the root question of-- "what is the purpose of government?"

 

If government's role is to act as the voice of the people, to carry out orders dictated by the will of the masses in hopes of creating a better place to live and breathe, then what government should spend tax monies on should reflect that same mission statement.

 

The question of whether or not to publically fund art programs has only become a hot-button issue recently, and the reasoning given for cutting such programs is almost always due to budget cuts. The issue then becomes why the government no longer has the money to fund these projects, and I claim the reason for that is because the government is spending ridiculous sums of taxpayers' money on wastes of time, money, etc. and not on things that most members of society deem valuable.

 

What would your community want, $150,000 worth of music classes, or a "Therapeutic Horse Riding Program?". $100,000 worth of art appreciation, or should that money go to something called the "National Association of Promoting Success?"

My counterpart’s thoughts are appreciated, and I too agree with his “striping” down the issue to its core. I believe the federal government all too often fails in setting a proper example to the American people, i.e. massive debt, inefficiencies, petty squabbling at all levels of leadership. Yet, in all of that, I think we might agree that allocating funds towards the Arts is something the U.S. government seems to have succeeded in setting a positive standard.

 

I continue to feel this issue needs to be pressed to the wealthy, liberally leaning constituents of Hollywood and the film, television and music industries. More and more movies are made in recent years with bloated budgets and anorexic scripts which reek of envy and covetousness for a time that has since passed; when movies, books, music, and art were much more concerned with passion and implication than money and power.

 

I ask, instead of another award show that parades and selfishly accolades the work of a few, why is this money not spent on the reinvigoration of a new renaissance of the Arts? Why is this money not spent heavily on musical programs and arts awareness? Why is it so important for actors to seek wealth and material goods, when glory and zeal had been enough to fuel the flames of creativity over the past millennium?

 

So I say, thank you to our leaders for setting a positive example in supporting the Arts. When will the Robert Redford’s and the Barbara Streisand’s of the world repay the art and craft that they have benefited so incredibly much from financially, so that our government, which has priorities that far exceed the Arts in fiscal importance? Shouldn’t the burden of financial responsibility be placed on the industry or industries that the art is derived from? While we might argue the extent of that burden, the standard needs to be set by those whose extreme wealth has resulted from Art, and not by our federal government.

Mr. Owens,

 

I'd like you to explain what you mean by "I claim the reason for that is because the government is spending ridiculous sums of taxpayers' money on wastes of time, money, etc. and not on things that most members of society deem valuable"

 

Understandably this statement has merits, but as I stated above, the Arts are funded significantly by our government as an example for the rest of us in my opinion. Do you agree, however, that that burden should be moved to those who financially benefit the most from the Arts? please explain.

Mr. Owens,

 

I'd like you to explain what you mean by "I claim the reason for that is because the government is spending ridiculous sums of taxpayers' money on wastes of time, money, etc. and not on things that most members of society deem valuable"

 

Understandably this statement has merits, but as I stated above, the Arts are funded significantly by our government as an example for the rest of us in my opinion. Do you agree, however, that that burden should be moved to those who financially benefit the most from the Arts? please explain.

 

What I mean is, public schools have long had art and music classes, and until recently it was never an issue. Nowadays, however, you hear stories all the time about public school districts wanting to cut such programs due to budget cuts, fiscal restructuring, etc. Well, the American people are certainly not paying less in taxes than they used to, so I believe the logical direction to go is to ask where the money is going that could be used on art/music programs. And if you look, you find that tax money is going to projects such as:

 

$200,000 Audie Murphy/American Cotton Museum, Greenville, Texas

$150,000 Therapeutic Horseback Riding Program, Lady B Ranch, California

$950,000 Please Touch Museum , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania

$2,000,000 Kitchen Relocation, Fairbanks ( Alaska ) North Star Borough.

 

I do agree that those who benefit financially from the arts should give back to the community, but I believe they already do. Could they do more? Absolutely. Should they do more? PRobably. But I don't think anyone would argue that Robert Redford, for example, should fund a public school district's choir, or high school drawing class. Especially not when the fine people of Indianola, MS see their tax money going to a B.B. King museum($1,000,000). I'd hope BB himself would argue that money could be much better spent to educate people about music.

 

Short answer-- until the government has much better answers for what they do with our money, I don't think they have any right asking private citizens to fill in so they can waste our tax dollars on little more than re-election brochure material.

My counterpart’s thoughts are appreciated, and I too agree with his “striping” down the issue to its core. I believe the federal government all too often fails in setting a proper example to the American people, i.e. massive debt, inefficiencies, petty squabbling at all levels of leadership. Yet, in all of that, I think we might agree that allocating funds towards the Arts is something the U.S. government seems to have succeeded in setting a positive standard.

 

    I continue to feel this issue needs to be pressed to the wealthy, liberally leaning constituents of Hollywood and the film, television and music industries. More and more movies are made in recent years with bloated budgets and anorexic scripts which reek of envy and covetousness for a time that has since passed; when movies, books, music, and art were much more concerned with passion and implication than money and power.

 

    I ask, instead of another award show that parades and selfishly accolades the work of a few, why is this money not spent on the reinvigoration of a new renaissance of the Arts? Why is this money not spent heavily on musical programs and arts awareness? Why is it so important for actors to seek wealth and material goods, when glory and zeal had been enough to fuel the flames of creativity over the past millennium?

 

    So I say, thank you to our leaders for setting a positive example in supporting the Arts. When will the Robert Redford’s and the Barbara Streisand’s of the world repay the art and craft that they have benefited so incredibly much from financially, so that our government, which has priorities that far exceed the Arts in fiscal importance? Shouldn’t the burden of financial responsibility be placed on the industry or industries that the art is derived from? While we might argue the extent of that burden, the standard needs to be set by those whose extreme wealth has resulted from Art, and not by our federal government.

 

 

Now here is my question to you, Mr. uh, er, InPA.

 

You appear to be of the opinion that wealthy people who have made lots of money off the arts should give more money back to fund public arts programs.

 

If so, then is it safe to assume that you feel this way about all subjects within a curriculum? What I mean is, do you also feel that Bill Gates, for example, should give his money to fund computer programs in schools? Or that Warren Buffet should lend a hand to foot the bill for finance courses at the local community college?

Now here is my question to you, Mr. uh, er, InPA.

 

You appear to be of the opinion that wealthy people who have made lots of money off the arts should give more money back to fund public arts programs.

 

If so, then is it safe to assume that you feel this way about all subjects within a curriculum?  What I mean is, do you also feel that Bill Gates, for example, should give his money to fund computer programs in schools?  Or that Warren Buffet should lend a hand to foot the bill for finance courses at the local community college?

 

I imagined that this would come up. To answer the questions briefly, your examples of technology (Gates) and finance (Buffet) funding privately are valid. I do believe it is the best interest of the public to encourage private non-profit organizations to distribute money because they are better equipped and more efficient than the Federal Government. This is shown on everyday on the national stage with disagreements and continual nonproduction with Medicare and Social Security. It is a plain fact that the private sector will beat any form of government at the the grass roots level.

 

To further my previous point, economic growth occurs when new technologies are implemented (Gates again) and workers are enabled to become more skilled (Buffet again). This is by far more important to the overall well being of the U.S. Economy and ultimately her people. For Mr. Redford to contend that the honus is on the Federal Government to provide adequate funding for Arts appreciate, education, promotion, etc. truly says a lot to me. Is he entitled to make money from his craft? yes. Should he have to live like a starving artist until every last person who "desires" to be an artist makes six figures? well, probably not.

 

It's a great question and I'm glad you asked it Wong. It's Mr. PA, for what it's worth.

My second question for you Mr. Wong...if that indeed is your real name.

 

You listed a few Arts initiatives:

$150,000 Therapeutic Horseback Riding Program, Lady B Ranch, CA

$950,000 Please Touch Museum, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

$1,000,000 B.B. King Museum, Indianola, MS

 

In addition, you said

until the government has much better answers for what they do with our money, I don't think they have any right asking private citizens to fill in so they can waste our tax dollars on little more than re-election brochure material.

 

My question is what are your qualifiers for determining a project socially relevant or a "good use of the people's tax dollars?"

 

Would you or wouldn't you agree that if one child is inspired by the B.B. King museum and becomes the 21st Century equivalent to him, that $1 million was worth the effort? Not to mention the thousands of people who would visit and be culturally enhanced?

 

Likewise, would a Please Touch Museum in Urban Philadelphia where kids can explore "hands on" be worth it if kept one child off the streets and transformed his or her life? Or a paraplegic teen that gets the chance to "walk" via horseback riding lessons?

 

This is not performance Art. This is Art enriching life, and we expect our government to supply the necessary funds to see this through? When did we become so trust worthy of bureaucracy? It's almost laughable.

My second question for you Mr. Wong...if that indeed is your real name.

 

You listed a few Arts initiatives:

$150,000 Therapeutic Horseback Riding Program, Lady B Ranch, CA

$950,000 Please Touch Museum, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

$1,000,000 B.B. King Museum, Indianola, MS

 

To clarify, I did not list these as Arts initiatives, but as examples of the projects the gov't wastes tax dollars on.

 

My question is what are your qualifiers for determining a project socially relevant or a "good use of the people's tax dollars?"

 

Common sense. And keeping the needs/wants of your constituents first and foremost. If you are a political officeholder representing a community, it is your main function to be aware of what your community needs or what they want you to get for them.

 

Would you or wouldn't you agree that if one child is inspired by the B.B. King museum and becomes the 21st Century equivalent to him, that $1 million was worth the effort? Not to mention the thousands of people who would visit and be culturally enhanced?

 

No, actually I don't. That one inspired person would be more than offset by the countless hundreds or thousands that would be missing the basic creative thinking skills that art initiatives instill, thanks to programs that could have potentially been funded by that $1 million.

 

Likewise, would a Please Touch Museum in Urban Philadelphia where kids can explore "hands on" be worth it if kept one child off the streets and transformed his or her life? Or a paraplegic teen that gets the chance to "walk" via horseback riding lessons?

 

Although the media would grab a story like this and make it seem like the Please Touch Museum was better than a cure for cancer, for example, they again would miss the big picture. The big picture is the many many other people that would be better served by that money going to broader-based educational programs that use the arts to make better people, generally speaking.

 

This is not performance Art. This is Art enriching life, and we expect our government to supply the necessary funds to see this through?

 

I expect, at least, for our government to supply the funds for projects that benefit the community as a whole, by listening to the members of said community and acting in their best interests. Always.

In conclusion...

 

If the people who make millions, wait...billions, on the art they create can't fund the education and promotion of new art, why the hell should we ask the average middle class tax payer to foot the bill?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and I heard Wong & Owens drowns puppies on the weekends.

In conclusion...

 

If the people who make millions, wait...billions, on the art they create can't fund the education and promotion of new art, why the hell should we ask the average middle class tax payer to foot the bill?

and I heard Wong & Owens drowns puppies on the weekends.

 

 

While I agree with Mr. Alex's point that those who have made more money via the arts than many small countries should contribute more to programs that expose people to, and educate people on, the arts, I do not think those contributions should come in the form of "Celebrity Funding of Art Appreciation Class." It would take many, many words to fully describe the slippery slope schools would be on if a plan like that were put in effect(You'll show every student Brokeback Mountain on Thursday in your conservative Utah public school?)

 

There's a much simpler, shorter answer why we shouldn't require this-- and that's where I disagree with Mrs.Sox4LifeinPA's Personal Manwhore. Alex says we shouldn't ask Joe Taxpayer to foot the bill for arts programs, but I contest that this is exactly what the average citizen's taxes should be spent on, albeit it's surely not #1 on the priority scale. These programs better communities, they better young minds, and they make for a better quality of life for all they touch. As I stated in a previous post, arts programs have always been part of school curriculums, funded by tax money, and it's never been a problem before. Now, your selfish, useless local politicians are saying there isn't any money for these programs. Why not? Where'd all the money go?

 

If you dug deep enough, you'd find the answer. And when you did, chances are it will make you sick.

Alex wants to know if it's OK if we vote for ourselves :headshake

Great conclusion Wong. In the end we disagree, but this form of debate was highly effective in my opinion. I don't believe the federal government was formed in the hopes to one day collect tax money from the average U.S. citizen in order to fund the promotion of the Arts. I think it's would be in our best interests for the government to have guidelines to how that money should be spent, but I believe the financial burden belongs on a unchecked industry that self-appluads itself but ultimately fails to act.

 

good night, and good luck.

 

San Demis football rules!