CreateDebate


Debate Info

19
16
Yes he did No he didn't
Debate Score:35
Arguments:22
Total Votes:35
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes he did (14)
 
 No he didn't (8)

Debate Creator

myclob(437) pic



Obama spent too much money on the Arts

Obama was wrong, in 2010 to spend $167.5 million on the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)

  1. Publicly financed art is too easily censored
  2. The federal government is too broke to be spending money on the arts. 
  3. The arts in America get enough money from the private sector that they don't need money from the federal government.
  4. The Federal Government should only fund things we are OK with putting people in Jail, if they wouldn't want to pay their taxes for those things. For instance we can require people to pay their taxes to fund roads, because we all have to pay our share. But it would be wrong to put someone in Jail just because they didn't want money to go to a particular project.
  5. It doesn't matter that it only costs a few dollars per citizen, because there are thousands of government programs that you could use this logic with, and they all add up after a while. 
  6. No citizen should be forced to fund someone else's hobby. 
    Its not good to spend money on the arts, just because the Government spends money in other stupid ways. 
  7. Vermont Arts Council Executive Director Alexander L. Aldrich said " Every State SHOULD invest in the arts sector simply because it makes good economic sense". Of course he as the State's "ARTS COUNCIL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR" is going to say this, but it doesn't make sense for us to just take the word of someone who's job depends upon our agreeing with him because he obviously has a vested interest. Anything from him should be taken with a grain of salt, because his opinion is going to be highly biased. But lets set aside his bias, and look at what he said. He said: "Every State SHOULD invest in the arts sector simply because it makes good economic sense". He didn't specify which type of arts the states should invest in, he just said that all investment in "Every State SHOULD invest in the arts sector simply because it makes good economic sense". So no matter how much money, or which type of art you invest in, it will make good economic sense. Quick! Stop the press! If this is true, we should spend 100% of Government's money on the arts, because it is a "makes good economic sense". 

Yes he did

Side Score: 19
VS.

No he didn't

Side Score: 16
3 points

Government likes to call the money they spend "investments" but, we wouldn't be in debt if all the money they spent was really an investment. Both parties call it an investment when they give money to people like them. The democrats call it investments when you spend money on piss-Christ, and the republicans call it an investment when you spend money on sports arenas and Nascar tracks. Both parties need to stop spending money that we don't have, no matter how much they feel it will help. I would like to send all my kids to Harvard, and I can tell myself that I am investing in the future, and I can even convince myself to go into debt, and leverage myself so much so that I think It will all work out, but at some point if we don't have the money we have got to stop spending it, no matter if you call it an investment or throwing money in a whole in the ground. We have got to stop doing it.

Side: Yes he did
Spoonerism(831) Disputed
2 points

In February, Obama proposed cuts to both agencies of $22 million.

http://philanthropy.com/blogs/government-and-politics/obama-proposes-cuts-to-arts-humanities/28000

Side: No he didn't

It is literally impossible for government to makes investments because in order to invest, it has to be your money, and government possess no assets.

Government is merely an expenditure.

Side: Yes he did
1 point

Any money above 0 dollars is too much money for the "arts".

I wouldn't expect congress to pay for Steam-punk reality settings just because it's something that the private industry hasn't put too much money into (so anyone really into steam-punk have to invest their own money into it).

Side: Yes he did

Correct, if government spending is 0 plus 1, it is much money for the arts.

Side: Yes he did

Seriously, what does the government know about art anyway.

"The greatest advances of civilization, whether in architecture or painting, in science and literature, in industry or agriculture, have never come from centralized government."

Side: Yes he did
6 points

Instead of questioning how much is spent on something as benign as the arts maybe you should be questioning why you spend more on your military arsenal every year than all other countries combined while your education and healthcare systems are among the worst in the developing world despite the fact that you are the by far the most powerful.

Side: No he didn't
ThePyg(6738) Disputed
2 points

Actually, you should ask Obama and Congress why they are spending so much on the military instead of asking us...

Personally, I believe that military spending should be cut drastically. You can not justify stupid policy by saying "well, they do other stupid things". Yes, and they should just stop doing stupid things, like wasting tax dollars.

Side: Yes he did
garry77777(1796) Disputed
1 point

You can not justify stupid policy by saying "well, they do other stupid things"

You're missing the point of my argument, im saying why debate something as insignificant as the money spent on the arts when the military budget is the real issue. I mean it seems laughable to me to someone create a serious debate on whether they spent too much on the arts when the budget is $167.5 million while military spending for the 2010 fiscal year was $663.8 billion, discrepancy???

Side: No he didn't
Hellno(17753) Disputed
1 point

while your education and healthcare systems are among the worst in the developing world

Come on Gary...among the developing world? Get a grip will ya.

Side: Yes he did
garry77777(1796) Disputed
1 point

among the developing world? Get a grip will ya.

Sorry i mean to type dveloped world, ya thats pretty big blunder alright. Anyway do you think its just a coincidence that your healthcare and education system are so shit while your military is ever expanding.

Side: No he didn't
2 points

I'm curious about how we calculate such an opinion. How do we establish "too much" investment and what would be an appropriate amount, if any? Exactly how much private money was invested in the arts over the last decade compared to public investment, and was the sum of private investment sufficient to maintain and/or propel the arts forward on its own? Is cultural development not something governments should encourage? Is it fair to blame President Obama for something that Congress has control over?

Side: No he didn't
myclob(437) Disputed
2 points

That money was from the Budget that president Obama proposed... Congress is responsible for passing the budget, but the president proposes a budget... I am holding Obama responsible for the budget that he proposed.

NEA head Rocco Landesman has defended grants to groups such as the San Francisco Mime Troupe on the grounds that it is a world-famous outfit that has contributed mightily to the stage. Which is another way of saying it should have little to no trouble finding private patrons to help it out. Americans give around $13 billion a year in private donations to the arts. That’s a lot of money and if it’s not enough to fund every request, groups such as the San Francisco Mime Troupe will just have to figure out how to better work the crowd.

Side: Yes he did
Mahollinder(900) Disputed
2 points

The Department of the Interior, in citing the American Association of Fundraising Counsel, concluded that the roughly $13 billion you project is the sum of money contributed to not only the arts, but museums, parks and recreational facilities, historical and cultural preservation. So, on the one hand, it's somewhat disingenuous to profess that that money was given to the arts per se, when only a percentage of it was - and probably not the majority of it either. On the other hand, Landesman made the legitimate point that these troupes and other performance institutions (and whatever else constitutes "the arts") probably wouldn't exist without that extra public money.

Also, your analysis of the San Fransisco Mime Troupe reminds me of a very small experiment conducted with violinist Joshua Bell, who is one of the best musicians America has ever produced. The question of the experiment dealt with the human ability (or willingness) to appreciate beauty when the conditions for such an appreciation are inconvenient or aesthetically misrepresented (in the wrong "place"). Bell was set up in a busy subway exit/entrance and tasked with playing music and seeing how many people would listen and/or donate money to him while he played.

Joshua Bell is a musician of worldwide fame, and he has played in some of the most prestigious halls, with an expensive gate. But that fame did not lend itself to legitimately profitable work during the experiment. He did receive some donations, and a very small number of people stayed to listen to him, but if that was his primary method of receiving money, he would starve to death. The point being, and I think you know where I'm going with this, is that the fame of the Mime Troupe is in fact not an indicator of their ability to find patrons. And, with the arts, it almost never has been easy regardless of talent or renown.

Without the ability to receive additional funding when those private donations disappear or have run their course, a lot of the artistic and cultural output, and history of the country will vanish. And the arts is one of those things whose value is intangible, but will nevertheless be felt when its gone.

Side: No he didn't
ThePyg(6738) Disputed
1 point

Did you know that stand-up comedy is an art?

Did you know that political campaigning, pornography, movie making, creating music, writing a book, writing a poem, and video games are all arts?

But you're right, Congress is to blame for wasting tax-payer dollars on what they consider art, not the president.

Side: Yes he did
1 point

Countries that sufficiently fund the arts like Japan, Hungary, and the Netherlands consistently rank among the highest for science and math scores. Furthermore, the arts and humanities teach and encode civilized values into our DNA which is obviously lacking in the USA considering our high rates of crime and violence compared to the rest of the world. Below is a link that supports the character transforming power of the arts.

http://dailynightly.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/01/18005192-principal-fires-security-guards-to-hire-art-teachers-and-transforms-elementary-school

Side: No he didn't