TFP never lets me down. I drop by, and it's like I never left. Roachboy with multiple insulting straw men and blatant misrepresentations. AceVentura3 with the patient of a saint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
and the Republicans have voted against every one of those measures over the past 14 months. It's all a political game right now; go on talk shows and blast Obama/the Dems for the bad economy and double digit unemployment rate, and then head over to Congress and vote down every bill that could create jobs, create loans, or ease the burden on the unemployed.
Rinse and repeat
|
Yes, those are the Republicans all right. Anti-business, and amazingly, against borrowing a trillion dollars for a health program no one has read. Or will be allowed to read. Pro tip: "Let's do something, even if it's wrong" doesn't work well in regard to medicine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
the republicans of course will stand in the way of anything like that because that's all they have to offer at this point, standing in the way of things, playing to news cycles, hoping that their reactive and reactionary politics these days will enable a kind of separation to be made between the republicans themselves and the economic ideology which enabled most of these problems to take shape, take hold, deepen and persist.
|
Good thing the dems would never engage in such shenanigans, like shielding Fanny and Freddie from any meaningful reform since 2001. Oh, wait ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by flstf
Good point. As I recall, back in the 1960's there were those like Buckminster Fuller who speculated that in the future productivity increases would require fewer and fewer workers and society would have to figure out a way to distribute wealth to the masses. As the wealth concentrates at the top, I don't think it is realistic to expect them to support all the new artists and masseuses, etc.
|
This is the most intelligent post of the entire thread. Obama and the Dems just can't get it through their heads that we are out of other people's money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
i have alot of conversations with various of my circle who do the artist thing about the problems with getting funding for projects and the simple reality that if you are able to do the art thing full time chances are good that much of that full time is spent chasing other grants. but the logic of the funding system overall is that artwork is good but that enabling the people who make that work to live and/or have a decent life for making that work is really not a priority. the result is that being-an-artist is either an aristocratic game or its a patronage game. same as it ever was. but to suggest that a labor market which makes space of more artists without providing them anything remotely like a way to live is disengenuous.
but you read alot about some alternative notion of art making as an aspect of what the "new creative class" does inside this thing they call the "new creative economy.."which seems mostly something that allows art-related non-profits/mediating institutions to talk back and forth to each other and to generate more grant revenues for themselves. not a whole lot seems to get through them to actual working artists. the relatively few that do support actual art-making end up being inundated with applications.
|
Well, that certainly sounds like a wonderful business model. How could such a productive system not pay for itself? I'm reminded of the guy on another forum who is unemployed and insulted because he can't find anyone who will pay him $40/hour to be a "game tester."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
The government should fund the arts; the funding should come from a progressive tax system.
|
Yes, and other people's money should be used to support the videocassette industry as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
you cannot be serious.
|
Your failure to conceptualize his point is telling. In your view, other people's money should be used to prop up anything you like. Perhaps if you and your friends contributed more to what you profess to support, there wouldn't be a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
See, the thing is, people won't know what art they'll enjoy unless they have an opportunity to actually experience it.
|
I choose not to view "Piss Christ" or a photo of a man with a bullwhip up his ass. Call me crazy.
Quote:
Also the granting process isn't just a handout. There are applications, requirements, audits, qualifications, and performance/operational minimums, etc. It's a part of doing business in the industry.
Unfortunately, it would be nearly impossible to have a completely hands-on democratic approach to deciding what gets spent on what.
|
Then perhaps (!) it is outside the proper scope of government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
as someone who works professionally in the arts community, I find just about everything Ace is suggesting to be patently absurd.
You don't think arts groups TRY to get corporate sponsorship? OF COURSE THEY DO!!! But companies are unwilling to give money unless they can slap their logos all over it (something that would be a little awkward on a statue or a play).
|
Looks like those who want to see the play are going to have to pay for the privilege, then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
you can compare anything you want. in response, i can say that comparing the sponsorships of NASCAR and Ballet is ridiculous
|
Yes. One is popular and self-sustaining. There must not be enough people in the world who wish to view the packages of a bunch of men in tights for several hours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
The conservative perspective (or at least the perspective seemingly held by fiscal conservatives) seems to require that problems be ignored. That's what "the free market" is all about. You let invisible hands guide things, and if things seem unpleasant, you cross your fingers and tell youself, "Well, this must be part of the invisible hand's divine plans." So what if people are losing their houses and their health, that's what the invisible hand does, and if we try to intervene, the invisible hand will punish us even more. It would be fucking insane to apply this type of hands-off faith to any other policy area.
Free market principles are often theology posing as economic policy.
|
Yes, it is MUCH better to increase the service on the national debt to 80% of revenue.