[Kjorteo]

Psudo wrote:

Is that argument more to your tastes?

Works for me. Thanks for the clarification.

[thealmightynarf]

CanadianJeff wrote:

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.

Name one instance where that actually worked.

And, even if that sort of thing can work... I mean, either the government buys up the bad mortgages or, at best, the people with bad mortgages lose their homes or, at worst, everyone who has a mortgage with struggling banks lose their homes. Giving money to the general populas won't solve that.

[MikeR]

This is the best commentary I've ever read on Canada's arts funding: This is Canada’s culture?

[Psudo]

Zipperfish wrote:

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.

That's more than a little misleading. While I have no doubt artists tend to be liberal, I doubt they tend to be Democrat or Liberal voters; I suspect they tend not to vote at all. And there's no reason I can think of why bankers would tend to be or vote Conservative or Republican (the bailout was Democrat-backed in the legislature, with the Republicans needing to be 'won over'); but just to make sure, I looked up a list of famous bankers and how each of them voted. There's only six, but I couldn't name that many famous bankers without research.

• Barber Conable was a Republican politician appointed Head of the World Bank by Ronald Reagan.
• Joseph Dodge was the mind behind the economic situation in Japan and Germany after World War 2. While he was appointed by Eisenhower (a moderate Republican) and I imagine conservatives reveling in his legacy, Wikipedia gives me no reason to believe he was partisan in either direction.
• Herbert Lehman was the founder of an investment bank and Democrat politician in the 50s.
• Dwight Morrow was a partner with JP Morgan and Calvin Coolidge.
• Paul Warburg was an early advocate of the Federal Reserve system and was appointed a member thereof by Democratic President and Progressive Era intellectual Woodrow Wilson.
• Paul Volcker was appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve by Jimmy Carter and now serves as an economic adviser for Barack Obama.

I count three clear Democrats, two clear Republicans, and one that may or may not have been partisan at all.

For some more modern statistics, commercial bankers donated more money to Democratic Candidates for President in the 2008 Presidential Election, 54.9% to 45.1%.

This evidence suggests that, both historically and today, banks and bankers are largely bipartisan with perhaps a slight leaning towards Democrats.

Further, notice that the Republican bankers' philosophies tend towards government staying out of banking, while the Democratic bankers support government involvement. Philosophically, a banker that wants a bailout would vote Democrat.

[Zipperfish]

Psudo wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

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.

That's more than a little misleading. While I have no doubt artists tend to be liberal, I doubt they tend to be Democrat or Liberal voters; I suspect they tend not to vote at all. And there's no reason I can think of why bankers would tend to be or vote Conservative or Republican (the bailout was Democrat-backed in the legislature, with the Republicans needing to be 'won over'); but just to make sure, I looked up a list of famous bankers and how each of them voted. There's only six, but I couldn't name that many famous bankers without research.

• Barber Conable was a Republican politician appointed Head of the World Bank by Ronald Reagan.
• Joseph Dodge was the mind behind the economic situation in Japan and Germany after World War 2. While he was appointed by Eisenhower (a moderate Republican) and I imagine conservatives reveling in his legacy, Wikipedia gives me no reason to believe he was partisan in either direction.
• Herbert Lehman was the founder of an investment bank and Democrat politician in the 50s.
• Dwight Morrow was a partner with JP Morgan and Calvin Coolidge.
• Paul Warburg was an early advocate of the Federal Reserve system and was appointed a member thereof by Democratic President and Progressive Era intellectual Woodrow Wilson.
• Paul Volcker was appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve by Jimmy Carter and now serves as an economic adviser for Barack Obama.

I count three clear Democrats, two clear Republicans, and one that may or may not have been partisan at all.

For some more modern statistics, commercial bankers donated more money to Democratic Candidates for President in the 2008 Presidential Election, 54.9% to 45.1%.

This evidence suggests that, both historically and today, banks and bankers are largely bipartisan with perhaps a slight leaning towards Democrats.

Further, notice that the Republican bankers' philosophies tend towards government staying out of banking, while the Democratic bankers support government involvement. Philosophically, a banker that wants a bailout would vote Democrat.

In Canada, I would argue that it is the Conservatives that are more trusted to handle the economy (thus why they would be more popular here with commerce and banker types). I assumed this was true also in the US (i.e. the right-wing party is more trusted to handle the economy), which was an error on my part. In the US, I don't know if there is a particular party inherently more trusted to look after the economy. And you provide evidence of that above.

I wouldn't know where to go find out what banking types in Canada vote, other than to say they certainly dress conservatively, so they probably vote that way too! I stand behind my bottom line assertion that cutting funding to arts and increasing funds to business interests serves Harper's base--that being business folks, not artists.

[Kjorteo]

The perception dating back to the FDR vs. Eisenhower days is that Democrats are for government programs paid by taxes and for regulation of commerce, while Republicans are for free markets, lower spending and taxes, and smaller government. Of course, that is not even remotely true anymore--George W. Bush must have set some sort of record as far as deficit spending goes. Republicans still like to grumble about certain for-the-people programs like welfare, medicare, and social security, but dump just as much spending into things like defense (including Iraq,) border patrol, and surveillance. My impression right now is that both sides like spending like maniacs, but the Democrats spend on programs to help the underprivileged and pay for it through taxes on the upper class, and Republicans spend on...angry things, cut taxes for everyone, and let the cost go directly to deficit spending/the national debt.

As a whole, average Americans polled tend to think the Democrats do better with the economy. Labor unions are overwhelmingly liberal, poverty-stricken small towns tend to be torn over which is more important between the economy (helping with the poverty--Democratic advantage) or small-town values (morality legislation, enforce traditional definition of marriage, etc.--Republican advantage,) and the current financial crisis is considered a major reason why John McCain is so far down in the polls right now. If I had to guess, I would say the reason Democrats have the edge on the economy is that average Americans are not upper-class, and so benefit from the Democratic model of programs for the underprivileged to be paid for by the elite.

[HyperionTheEvil]

Zipperfish wrote:

I'm an interested party as someone who's sold work to magzines that are partly funded by various provincial or federal art grants. Also, like most people who live in the lower mainland of BC, I have frineds who rely on the film industry for a living. I think art and culture has to be treated differently than a business, so I don't accept the idea that, if an artist can't make money, he or she has no business being an artist.

I don't like funded "gala" events, and I don't like self-aggrandizing prentious iconoclasts trying to pass off outrageous behaviou as art. But I think there is more to arts funding than that. What about all those great NFB films we all love, like the Hockey Sweater?

Sorry business is business. you want a living, one has to earn it with something of market value. If an artist wants to be an artist i could care a less, when an artist has a sense of entitle to Tax dollars then thats just plain ingorant

[Kjorteo]

HyperionTheEvil wrote:

Sorry business is business. you want a licing, one has to eran it with something of market value. If an artist wantas to be an artist i could care a less, when an artist has a sense of entitle to Tax dollars then thats just plain ingorant

...I'm sorry, what?

[HyperionTheEvil]

Kjorteo wrote:

HyperionTheEvil wrote:

Sorry business is business. you want a licing, one has to eran it with something of market value. If an artist wantas to be an artist i could care a less, when an artist has a sense of entitle to Tax dollars then thats just plain ingorant

...I'm sorry, what?

Fixed

Thank god for the grammer Nazi's

[Zipperfish]

Kjorteo wrote:

HyperionTheEvil wrote:

Sorry business is business. you want a licing, one has to eran it with something of market value. If an artist wantas to be an artist i could care a less, when an artist has a sense of entitle to Tax dollars then thats just plain ingorant

...I'm sorry, what?

yeah, Kjorteo, quit being so ingorant.

[Psudo]

Zipperfish wrote:

In Canada, I would argue that it is the Conservatives that are more trusted to handle the economy (thus why they would be more popular here with commerce and banker types).

There's quite a large subsection of the rich in the USA who advocate Democratic policies despite their means being dependent on Republican economic values. Various arguments exist to explain it, but being well-off and party loyalty are rarely powerful correlations. I assume that extends across our northern border somewhat.

Zipperfish wrote:

they certainly dress conservatively, so they probably vote that way too!

Haha, expert analysis! I am convinced.

HyperionTheEvil: It was the ridiculousness of your statement, not your spelling, that Kjorteo was exclaiming about. And even if it were, you still misspelled 'ingorant'. (hint: 'ignorant')

I do think there's something severely wrong with the government supporting "art" that no one wants, but I have no problem with government as a rational consumer of art. If government buys art it deems beautiful in order to decorate public places or populate museums, great! But why is it government's role to be the willing stooge to avant-garde mockery by the artists it funds? A few hundreds of millions out of a multi-trillion-dollar budget is hardly a budget-breaker.

[Zipperfish]

Psudo wrote:

I do think there's something severely wrong with the government supporting "art" that no one wants, but I have no problem with government as a rational consumer of art. If government buys art it deems beautiful in order to decorate public places or populate museums, great! But why is it government's role to be the willing stooge to avant-garde mockery by the artists it funds? A few hundreds of millions out of a multi-trillion-dollar budget is hardly a budget-breaker.

Again, I state my own bias right up front, as being someone who has benefitted (indirectly) from arts grants.

My main beef in this whole topic has been against though who characterize all arts funding as going towards hoity-toity gala events or subsidizing artists whose sole talent seems to be outraging people. This, I think, was the impression the Conservatvies were trying to create, and it's a false impresion and, fortunately, Canadians called him on it--well Quebecers did, at the very least--and he was forced to reverse his stance. The pundits offer that it may have cost Harper a majority government, since Conservatvies plummeted in Quebec right after the announcement.

From a libertarian perspective there's not much justification for gov't funding, for sure. But it could also be considered in the same light as providing money to the troubled automotive sector. Arts and culture, like automobiles, is a business worth several billion a year in Canada. It would probably be better iof arts and culture were more funded by private foundations, in my opinion, as they do in teh US, but we don't seem to have that tradition as much here.

[EyeBrock]

I totally believe the arts funding thing cost Harper a majority. Who advises him on Quebec?
If a lowly immigrant living in Ontario (me) can suss out that Quebec is very sensitive on culture and language, how come Harper couldn't?

Stupid move on his part and he deserved to get a minority because of it.

[Psudo]

Right, Zipperfish. Like so many groups, artists are falsely judged to be the same as the worst elements of their subculture.

Though, to tell the truth, I wish the US government would stop trying to 'save the US auto industry'. Either it'll save itself by making great cars at great prices, or it won't. In the latter case, government aid only makes it a more expensive failure.

I'm far more willing to give money to art than to the auto industry.

[Pseudonym]

I'm far more willing to give money to myself than to either of them. There is something to be said for the benefits of promoting culture as well as education and a literal ton of other things, but all these things must be done carefully and reasonably. Government corruption and ignorance will ruin anything if left to fester too long. I hate to bring up an overused example, but the NEA funding a jar of urine with the cross in it as a piece of art is just ridiculous.