[SDGHomero]

It is kinda difficult to draw a line here, because you will always have very talented people here and there that won't be able to bring their marvelous manuscript to the screen at all, but with special funding. Bad news is, the remaining 90% will take advantage of that and whatnot. Then, there are those artists that can do pretty well and survive by themselves, without further help.

But you know what was the root of the problem? My father has a saying, that translates more or less as "people that manages art (economics, politics, whatever), share the same piece of bubblegum over and over again." That means, at least from here, that a Picasso costs several million dollars if the so-called "art authorities" say so. And the rest of the world agree just because. For me, a Picasso is just a bunch of crappy doodles. Is there some kind of beauty in something as stupid as deformed people with colors that do not even match? What is wrong with the world? Now, extrapolate that example to all different kinds of art, and there you go.

But to where to go from here? One cannot decide in an absolute fashion (like a Sith) what's great and what's crap. To design a comitee to decide who gets funding and who doesn't isn't the answer.

Anyhow, If Harper keeps doing this with all the other classes of spending that can be redeemed and used later for better things... isn't that something good (providing that he actually redirects all that extra money to "makes-sense" spending)? Amateur artists could use a more limited founding, have some kind of cap, and then go on by themselves: if they are good, great, the goverment helped you to get started. If you suck, well, sucks to be you! HM

[Taospark]

The U.S. sort of had the same controversy in the 90's with the National Endowment for the Arts being criticized for funding potentially anti-American artists, which resulted in the budget being cut. It became a minor banner issue for conservatives for a few years before Clinton's infidelities drew their ire.

What I don't get is the amount of money that's up for grabs. The NEA's funding is not even a quarter of a billion. I'm guessing the Canadian allotment is the same or even less out of a total $5 billion federal budget. Is it really such a big deal or is it the same kind of political sticking point the NEA was?

[MacDonaill]

SideShowCecil wrote:

So the Conservatives have upset a tiny little sector of the electorate that would never vote for them anyway. Big deal!

Well he basically lost most of the support he had gained in Quebec as a result. That and a few other gaffes like wanting to send kids to adult prison.

[Psudo]

MacDonaill wrote:

...other gaffes like wanting to send kids to adult prison.

'Kids' in the sense of 17-year-olds who shot someone to death during a robbery? Yeah, it makes no sense to treat them like 18-year-olds who shoot someone to death during a robbery. 90% of brain development occurs during the last month before a person's 18th birthday.

[Murray_Smith]

Psudo wrote:

90% of brain development occurs during the last month before a person's 18th birthday.

It took me about a minute to realize that you were being sarcastic there.

[CanadianJeff]

It's easy to say "this is the genral case" Personally I like what Pusdo does when he goes "here is a real case where it makes some sense!"

[Kjorteo]

Thanos wrote:

I don't see where being an artist costs so much in terms of supplies that require subsidizing. You can get a crucifix at a Catholic bible supply store for pretty darned cheapand it shouldn't take more than a week to make up your own gallon of urine to put the cross in either. Grocery stores are everywhere so buying raw meat to hang from trees should be all that costly. ....

I like that that has completely taken over as the common perception of art in general these days. It's like the one blatant straw man that no one seems to recognize as such.

Thanos wrote:

And good luck with the writer thingy. I tried once but it didn't go anywhere which truly sucks because I've got a kick-ass Cthulhu story rattling around in my brainpan that would be totally boffo if it ever saw print or got optioned for a movie,

With all due respect, maybe you should try again when you can spell "through."

Psudo wrote:

'Kids' in the sense of 17-year-olds who shot someone to death during a robbery? Yeah, it makes no sense to treat them like 18-year-olds who shoot someone to death during a robbery. 90% of brain development occurs during the last month before a person's 18th birthday.

Are we talking about a very specific case whose details I somehow missed hearing? I'm going to assume we are, because as an in-general statement, this seems like suspiciously caricatured hyperbole for something Psudo would say.

[Zipperfish]

Taospark wrote:

The U.S. sort of had the same controversy in the 90's with the National Endowment for the Arts being criticized for funding potentially anti-American artists, which resulted in the budget being cut. It became a minor banner issue for conservatives for a few years before Clinton's infidelities drew their ire.

What I don't get is the amount of money that's up for grabs. The NEA's funding is not even a quarter of a billion. I'm guessing the Canadian allotment is the same or even less out of a total $5 billion federal budget. Is it really such a big deal or is it the same kind of political sticking point the NEA was?

Yeah--250 million for artists compared to 700 billion for bankers.

But lets face it, it's a partisan thing really. Artists tend to be liberal, bankers tend to be conservative.

[thealmightynarf]

Zipperfish wrote:

Yeah--250 million for artists compared to 700 billion for bankers.

I understand that the "$700 billion" isn't money that was coming out of the government's general budget, but money that the Federal Reserve had been hording up for ages specifically just in case something like this happened.

The money is much more so coming from the banking industry than it is from the general tax payers.

[Zipperfish]

thealmightynarf wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

Yeah--250 million for artists compared to 700 billion for bankers.

I understand that the "$700 billion" isn't money that was coming out of the government's general budget, but money that the Federal Reserve had been hording up for ages specifically just in case something like this happened.

The money is much more so coming from the banking industry than it is from the general tax payers.

I think its the Treasury Board buying the mortgages, isn't it? I think it's ultimately the taxpayers are on the hook.

[thealmightynarf]

Zipperfish wrote:

I think its the Treasury Board buying the mortgages, isn't it? I think it's ultimately the taxpayers are on the hook.

If resources are set aside to deal with a certain sort of disaster, and then those recourses are used when that certain from of disaster comes along, is that money coming from the tax payers? I suppose. But, this isn't money that's getting pulled from the government's money now... we're not going to see any extra taxes or anything to help pay this off... This is money that's been saved up over the last 70 years specifically for this sort of situation. They already have it and somewhat more, I understand. Tax payers aren't going to be any more effected by this than they ever were.

[CanadianJeff]

taxpayer money is taxpayers money.

Frankly Taxpayers money should always be used to bail out mainstreet not wallstreet. Bail out the consumers and they will spend more. It all works out in the end of the people spending with the corporations they WANT to survive.

It's just another way of letting people vote with their wallets as to which banks get to survive and such.

[Taospark]

CanadianJeff wrote:

taxpayer money is taxpayers money.

Frankly Taxpayers money should always be used to bail out mainstreet not wallstreet. Bail out the consumers and they will spend more. It all works out in the end of the people spending with the corporations they WANT to survive.

It's just another way of letting people vote with their wallets as to which banks get to survive and such.

True, but it does become a bit roundabout if you're taking money directly from taxpayers to directly give back to them. The government could conceivably redirect income tax revenue to specific parts of the country, like Louisiana or Michigan, but that could cause some ill-feeling that one state is a burden to the rest.

[Psudo]

Kjorteo wrote:

Psudo wrote:

'Kids' in the sense of 17-year-olds who shot someone to death during a robbery? Yeah, it makes no sense to treat them like 18-year-olds who shoot someone to death during a robbery. 90% of brain development occurs during the last month before a person's 18th birthday.

Are we talking about a very specific case whose details I somehow missed hearing? I'm going to assume we are, because as an in-general statement, this seems like suspiciously caricatured hyperbole for something Psudo would say.

I admit it was shorter and more sarcastic than is typical for me, but after no one responded to my long, detailed, and serious post in the 'Socialism' thread, I figured being too serious and thoughtful was getting me ignored. I suppose I overcorrected.

Why should the state assume that an integer age limit is a definitive depiction of the difference between adults and children? Children do not mature suddenly at some precise moment, but laws including controlled materials use, statutory rape, and the application of punishment at trials all use the same line-in-the-sand standard. It makes reasonable sense to allow for exceptions in cases where an individual has clearly developed atypically. Exceptions already exist in the reverse direction; the mentally challenged or emotionally stunted may be protected from typical punishments due to their stunted development. Why can't individuals with clearly mature mental and emotional development be tried as if they possessed adult reasoning skills when they clearly do?

Is that argument more to your tastes?

[Zipperfish]

Taospark wrote:

CanadianJeff wrote:

taxpayer money is taxpayers money.

Frankly Taxpayers money should always be used to bail out mainstreet not wallstreet. Bail out the consumers and they will spend more. It all works out in the end of the people spending with the corporations they WANT to survive.

It's just another way of letting people vote with their wallets as to which banks get to survive and such.

True, but it does become a bit roundabout if you're taking money directly from taxpayers to directly give back to them. The government could conceivably redirect income tax revenue to specific parts of the country, like Louisiana or Michigan, but that could cause some ill-feeling that one state is a burden to the rest.

This New York Times site does a pretty good job of summarizing the bailout.

The Wall Street Bailout Plan, Explained

Note especially:

Quote:

But the bottom line is, yes, this bailout could cost American taxpayers a lot of money.

It's a strange kind of socialism the right-wing in the US has been embarking upon since the advent of teh neo-conservatives. Mostly socialism has tried (and usually failed) to address social inequities by transferring wealth from the rich to the poor. The US is actually using socialism to accelerate the inequities by transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. Go figure.

Canada has done the same thing, committing some 25 billion of taxpayers money to help out the banks. It's buying 25 billion worth of mortgages from the banks, saying that this is a good investment and taxpayers will not be on the hook. Two problems. (1) according to the orthodox conservative ethos, government should not be in the banking business regardless of the merits a of a given investment, and (2) if the mortgage deal is so good, why is the market not capitalizing on them?

Compared to these numbers, monies given to arts and culture are a pittance, and yet on the right, they are decried with far more ferocity than the bailouts. Why? Simple. Bankers tend to be conservative, and artists tend to be liberal. The left is not willing to accept the importance of maintaing the global finance system through quasi-socialization of the banking section adn the right is not willing to accept the importance of arts and culture to the fabric of a high-functioning society.

I found one source (Statistics Canada) that estimated that all levels of government in Canada spent 7.3 billion on arts and culture in Canada in 2003/04. From the federal perspective (which spent about 3.3 billion) that covers broadcasting (1.6 billion), film industry (386 million) and books/periodicals (163 million). I highly recommend the Stats Can page. It's an informative read.