Trump wants to end Arts and Public Broadcasting

[Orbitus]

Time to get real. The government has been running large deficits for years. This can't go on. We need to cut something.

What Trump is going after is largely stuff that government doesn't need to be involved in or is better handled through other means. Why does government need to support art? That can be accomplished through private citizens. CPB is being spun off into a gov't corporation like the post office (that's another can of works, but it will at least be more self-sufficient).

If you don't like what's being cut, suggest other things.

Cutting funding for public shit like PBS is a TINY FUCKING FRACTION of the budget. It literally is nothing in comparison to the military budget. Why don't we cut from there?

[Wells]

I don't see that I ignored the point. I dismiss it as irrelevant.

You dismissed it because you can't address it.

[Tonkaden]

No no, better cut the Arts.

I mean, the only culture we really need is a pair of truck nuts.

You act like if the government stops the little funding we give art that art will cease to exist. Art will always go on, regardless of government funding to freeloaders.

[Templar 331]

I wonder how long NASA has since Trump has already claimed he will cut "politicized science" aka climate change research. He's already cutting government funded art, who's to say government funded science won't be next. >.>

[Tonkaden]

Cutting funding for public shit like PBS is a TINY FUCKING FRACTION of the budget. It literally is nothing in comparison to the military budget. Why don't we cut from there?

Everything is tiny. Go to your bank statement and start adding up trips to the store or fast food or entertainment. $5 here, $10 here adds up fucking fast.

Oh let me guess! You save every dime amirite?

[Wells]

You act like if the government stops the little funding we give art that art will cease to exist. Art will always go on, regardless of government funding to freeloaders.

And cutting the NEA will do shit to fix the deficit while depriving an already starved field of funding.

[Berengil]

You dismissed it because you can't address it.

There's nothing to address. The things you advocate for saving are of no vital importance. That's why I dismiss the point. The equivalency you draw between them is a false one.

[Wells]

Everything is tiny. Go to your bank statement and start adding up trips to the store or fast food or entertainment. $5 here, $10 here adds up fucking fast.

Oh let me guess! You save every dime amirite?

This is an asinine argument for how to craft a government budget.

[Berengil]

Yep. Oh noes, government wont fund my art. Let me quit being an artist! Support your own damned art. The government doesn't need to pay for your art.

And this, 100%.

[Belize]

You act like if the government stops the little funding we give art that art will cease to exist. Art will always go on, regardless of government funding to freeloaders.

And you act like the minuscule amount of money taxed each year from you is really going to make a difference.

[Deleted]

The National Endowment For The Arts And The Corporation For Public Broadcasting are always easy targets. I'm a big fan of Public Broadcasting, the US' version of the BBC.






http://thehill.com/policy/finance/31...-dramatic-cuts

Trump Wants To Eliminate The National Endowment For The Arts And The Corporation For Public Broadcasting

Trump transition team have been meeting with career staff at the White House ahead of Friday’s presidential inauguration to outline their plans for shrinking the federal bureaucracy, The Hill has learned.



The changes they propose are dramatic.

The departments of Commerce and Energy would see major reductions in funding, with programs under their jurisdiction either being eliminated or transferred to other agencies. The departments of Transportation, Justice and State would see significant cuts and program eliminations.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be privatized, while the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities would be eliminated entirely.

Overall, the blueprint being used by Trump’s team would reduce federal spending by $10.5 trillion over 10 years.

The proposed cuts hew closely to a blueprint published last year by the conservative Heritage Foundation, a think tank that has helped staff the Trump transition.

Similar proposals have in the past won support from Republicans in the House and Senate, who believe they have an opportunity to truly tackle spending after years of warnings about the rising debt.

Many of the specific cuts were included in the 2017 budget adopted by the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC), a caucus that represents a majority of House Republicans. The RSC budget plan would reduce federal spending by $8.6 trillion over the next decade.

Two members of Trump’s transition team are discussing the cuts at the White House budget office: Russ Vought, a former aide to Vice President-elect Mike Pence and the former executive director of the RSC, and John Gray, who previously worked for Pence, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) when Ryan headed the House Budget Committee.

Vought and Gray, who both worked for the Heritage Foundation, are laying the groundwork for the so-called skinny budget — a 175- to 200-page document that will spell out the main priorities of the incoming Trump administration, along with summary tables. That document is expected to come out within 45 days of Trump taking office.

The administration’s full budget, including appropriations language, supplementary materials and long-term analysis, is expected to be released toward the end of Trump’s first 100 days in office, or by mid- to late April.

Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), Trump’s choice to head the Office of Management and Budget, has not yet weighed in on the proposed spending reforms because he is still awaiting confirmation by the Senate.

Mulvaney voted for the RSC budget offered as a more conservative alternative to the main House Republican budget in 2015. The House did not vote on the RSC budget for fiscal year 2017.

The preliminary proposals from the White House budget office will be shared with federal departments and agencies soon after Trump takes the oath of office Friday, and could provoke an angry backlash.

Trump’s Cabinet picks have yet to be apprised of the reforms, which would reduce resources within their agencies.

The budget offices of the various departments will have the chance to review the proposals, offer feedback and appeal for changes before the president’s budget goes to Congress.

It’s not clear whether Trump’s first budget will include reforms to Social Security or Medicare, two major drivers of the federal deficit.

Trump vowed during the campaign not to cut Medicare and Social Security, a pledge that Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), his pick to head the Department of Health and Human Services, told lawmakers in testimony Wednesday has not changed.

Yet it could be very difficult to reduce U.S. debt without tackling the entitlement programs. Conservative House budgets have repeatedly included reforms to Medicare and Social Security, arguing they are necessary to save the programs.

The presidential budget is important in setting policy and laying out the administration’s agenda, though Congress would be responsible for approving a federal budget and appropriating funds.

Moving Trump’s budget through Congress could be difficult. In 2015, with the GOP in control of the House, the RSC budget failed by a vote of 132 to 294.

Moderate Republicans and Democrats on the Appropriations Committee are likely to push back at some of the cuts being considered by Trump.

But they seem likely to have the support of Mulvaney, a conservative budget hawk who backed the RSC budget.

“Mick Mulvaney and his colleagues at the Republican Study Committee when they crafted budgets over the years, they were serious,” said a former congressional aide. “Mulvaney didn’t take this OMB position to just mind the store.”

“He wants to make significant, fundamental changes to the structure of the president’s budget, and I expect him to do that with Vought and Gray putting the meat on the bones,” the source added.

The Heritage blueprint used as a basis for Trump’s proposed cuts calls for eliminating several programs that conservatives label corporate welfare programs: the Minority Business Development Agency, the Economic Development Administration, the International Trade Administration and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. The total savings from cutting these four programs would amount to nearly $900 million in 2017.

At the Department of Justice, the blueprint calls for eliminating the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Violence Against Women Grants and the Legal Services Corporation and for reducing funding for its Civil Rights and its Environment and Natural Resources divisions.

At the Department of Energy, it would roll back funding for nuclear physics and advanced scientific computing research to 2008 levels, eliminate the Office of Electricity, eliminate the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and scrap the Office of Fossil Energy, which focuses on technologies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Under the State Department’s jurisdiction, funding for the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Paris Climate Change Agreement and the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are candidates for elimination.

Conservatives allied with fiscal hawks such as Pence, Paul and the Heritage Foundation say the time is long past due to get serious about cutting the federal deficit.

“The Trump Administration needs to reform and cut spending dramatically, and targeting waste like the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities would be a good first step in showing that the Trump Administration is serious about radically reforming the federal budget,” said Brian Darling, a former aide to Paul and a former staffer at the Heritage Foundation.

Imagine raising taxes for the wealthiest and how much money that'd give.
But nah, that's evil and socialist I guess. Can't have those with vast amounts of money actually contribute to the country they're in in any way. THey really need those billions for themselves and their...uh...well I dunno what you need those for.
If you love your country, I don't see why you wouldn't wanna contribute more to it if you have more to contribute with for the betterment of all. THat doesn't seem to ring well though, especially not with the corporate hogwash the US has been brainwashed with for decades.

[Wells]

There's nothing to address. The things you advocate for saving are of no vital importance. That's why I dismiss the point. The equivalency you draw between them is a false one.

Again, the NEA costs us less than military hardware that is never used. Any arguments of relative utility on this score are bunk.

[Berengil]

Again, the NEA costs us less than military hardware that is never used. Any arguments of relative utility on this score are bunk.

Better to have something and never need it, than to need something and not have it.

No one ever needed a painting to survive.

[Jester Joe]

You act like if the government stops the little funding we give art that art will cease to exist. Art will always go on, regardless of government funding to freeloaders.

You're making it sound like the government sends out personal checks to every single artist.

Do you even know how much a tube of quality paint is by the way? You're also making it sound as if art is cheap to create.

[Tonkaden]

This is an asinine argument for how to craft a government budget.

Its the fucking truth. 2 million here, 8 million there, next thing you know you have a billion. Thats how shit works. You don't know shit about how finance works if you think you just go after and only after the big numbers.

IMB4 you are a economics major. People loooooooooove tossing out 14 PHDs to try and legitimize their arguments.

[Deleted]

Everything is tiny. Go to your bank statement and start adding up trips to the store or fast food or entertainment. $5 here, $10 here adds up fucking fast.

Oh let me guess! You save every dime amirite?

But how is that an argument against what you quoted...?

[Belize]

I look forward to our new national anthem.
[video=youtube;EbjyiW_Dd_k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbjyiW_Dd_k[/vi

IDK about the Vodka part though

I mean, someone in the government must be getting a lot of it.

[Celista]

Cutting funding for public shit like PBS is a TINY FUCKING FRACTION of the budget. It literally is nothing in comparison to the military budget. Why don't we cut from there?

Did you watch his inauguration speech?Trump thinks our military is weak and puny now, which is hilarious if you look at the size of our military spending versus what the rest of the world spends on their military.

Considering Trump's non-interventionist foreign policy stance coupled with his pro-military growth stance, I can only assume that we're going to have millions of soldiers standing around with little to do other than fondling their own nuts for the next 4/8 years. #MAGA

[Deleted]

I bet he will replace this with a "TRUMPtoday"-channel that only airs the .. lets call it truth. ;}

[Torto]

The fuck are you on about now?

Most of these 'publicly funded' organisations are nothing more than liberal left wing think tanks. They do nothing useful except sit around nodding at each other as they reinforce the groupthink on any liberal topic that takes their fancy. They couldn't possibly fund themselves so they rely on sucking the taxpayers teat.