Did Harry Reid just say that?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Reid: Save federal funding for the cowboy poets! - On Congress: Reid: Save federal funding for the cowboy poets!

March 08, 2011

Reid: Save federal funding for the cowboy poets!

Did Harry Reid just say that?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0311/Reid_Save_federal_funding_for_the_cowboy_poets.html

[opebo]

If he did he's a freedom fighter.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Reid is indeed a Freedom Fighter despite what he said about prostitution.

[opebo]

Anyone who wants to eliminate funding for poetry so the rich can have more golden toilet bowls and servants to wipe them is an ass.  Or to put it another way america is an ass.

Wait can I say that?  My point is that the fact that the vast majority of people probably agree with CarlHeydan and disapprove of Reid just goes to show us what we're up against - an electorate so debased it makes that which embraced Hitler look erudite and sophisticated.

[minionofmidas]

Well of course - small quirky independent art doesn't cost much to subsidize but is utterly dependent on subsidies being available. And this one is a) way cool b) in his constituency.

[Lief 🗽]

Carl, why do you feel it is more important that the super rich have a few million more dollars to spend on themselves than it is we support uniquely American artists?

[opebo]

Carl, why do you feel it is more important that the super rich have a few million more dollars to spend on themselves than it is we support uniquely American artists?

Randianism is a mental illness; I'd go further and say that American culture is a kind of insanity.

I'll tell a little story.  My brother was complaining to me the other day about probate costs (which we may have to pay someday).  He said it could be up to 8% of the estate, and was crying piteously about this.

I said 'you should have such problems'

He said, "what does that mean"

I said, "well, it means it could be worse - you could have nothing.  We still get 92% - the glass is 92% full"

He said "yeah, it doesn't pay to work, to try.  aught to just be lazy and go on welfare"

I thought to myself - wow, I'm dealing with the extravagandly mentally ill here, and the whole country is packed stem to stern with them back home. 

[Lief 🗽]

Yeah. It's hard work to fool an entire society, over the course of decades and decades, numerous generations, and varied mediums so thoroughly and completely, but somehow they did it. And now all but perhaps the richest 5-10% of us (and that's being generous) are paying the price.

[DrScholl]

Nice try, but the article makes his position very clear. The festival brings in dollars to an area which would otherwise not get them. It's a heck of a lot better than billion dollar tax cuts to people who don't need it.

[minionofmidas]

Carl, why do you feel it is more important that the super rich have a few million more dollars to spend on themselves than it is we support uniquely American artists?

To be quite fair, "American" cowboy culture is, almost in its entirety, a cultural import from Mexico.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You know here's an idea that I'm surprised no state has tried before, why not actually fund the arts and take a share in it? So you can get the profits.

I mean governments have funded movies all the time (I know the government of Australia paid about half the massive budget of the movie "Australia" because it was basically one giant tourism ad for them.) and often give tax credits and special deals to encourage them being filmed there ("A Serious Man" is the best example here, I know the state of Minnesota basically agreed to let it be filmed here tax-free because of all the money into the economy that would result...plus it's set here anyway), but let's say someone wanted to make a movie with a $20 million budget and the state where it's being filmed agrees to cover $10 million of that. In exchange they basically "own" half the movie and thus half the profits. So if the movie goes on to make $100 million they get $50 million. Boom profit. That's basically what the government did with the auto makers after all...

[opebo]

Nice try, but the article makes his position very clear. The festival brings in dollars to an area which would otherwise not get them. It's a heck of a lot better than billion dollar tax cuts to people who don't need it.

This is the real point of this issue - government spending is what drives the economy.

[patrick1]

BRTD, You are aware that many movies lose money and have pushed their studios into bankruptcy.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

BRTD, You are aware that many movies lose money and have pushed their studios into bankruptcy.

Yes, massive blockbusters. A Serious Man cost $7 million and my hypothetical was $20 million.

[patrick1]

BRTD, You are aware that many movies lose money and have pushed their studios into bankruptcy.

Yes, massive blockbusters. A Serious Man cost $7 million and my hypothetical was $20 million.

Plenty of Indie flops that no one ever sees also.  Government should stick to governing.
Here is an example for you also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_office_bomb#Publicly_financed_films

[minionofmidas]

Well, since governments subsidize films anyways? Why not take a share of the profits, should there be any?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

BRTD, You are aware that many movies lose money and have pushed their studios into bankruptcy.

Yes, massive blockbusters. A Serious Man cost $7 million and my hypothetical was $20 million.

Plenty of Indie flops that no one ever sees also.  Government should stick to governing.
Here is an example for you also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_office_bomb#Publicly_financed_films

OK one Canadian film that only cost $2 million CAD is mentioned. Most of those indie films that go nowhere in theaters make a profit eventually anyway because of TV and international distribution rights. Unless something really goes wrong it's almost impossible to not at least get your money back on a $5 million film. How do you think Uwe Boll and the creators of crappy direct-to-DVD movies get people to fund their crap?

[patrick1]

Well, since governments subsidize films anyways? Why not take a share of the profits, should there be any?

Well, you would have to take a share of the losses as well.  Governments have more pressing concerns that per theater gross and dvd sales.  However, this could be a genius idea for us to launder a bunch of money.  Sorry China, cant pay you back. Our newest release had a bad opening weekend.

http://www.slashfilm.com/insane-studio-accounting-warner-bros-claims-167-million-loss-over-harry-potter-and-the-order-of-the-phoenix/

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix: $150 million budget
A Serious Man: $7 million budget

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Still. Why should Americans pay so someone else can get money to make art? I draw, I play a couple instruments, however, I don't expect just to get money so I can make that art.

[DrScholl]

It's important for a country to boost it's culture, arts can be a huge portion of GDP and a small investment can go a long way in boosting local economies.

The NEA's 2009 budget was only $155 millions, the tax cuts and corporate subsidy a cost more than that. Cutting it won't make the deficit go away, it's an imaginary solution to the problem.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Ah yes, this reminds me of Mike Naso's classic tax cut proposals:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=16936.msg406334#msg406334

[patrick1]

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix: $150 million budget
A Serious Man: $7 million budget

You dont get the point.  These movies make what they want you to believe they made.  They claimed a loss on more than the budget you are quoting after 400 mil box office. Large studios have shady accounting practices.  Smaller movies are/were rampant with mob and drug money that inflate #'s in order to wash money.  Fact is even most indie movies lose money because they are never picked up by anything.  However, some people will gamble because they hold out the could have the next Blair Witch or something on their hands.  

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Look my point is that if the state of Minnesota actually funded part of A Serious Man as opposed to just giving tax credits it would've made a profit. "Australia" was a box office disappointment in regards to its massive budget but even it probably made a profit (though the government of Australia basically gave it all that money for free, whether it was worth it is something we can't conclude.)

[phk]

It's important for a country to boost it's culture, arts can be a huge portion of GDP and a small investment can go a long way in boosting local economies.

The NEA's 2009 budget was only $155 millions, the tax cuts and corporate subsidy a cost more than that. Cutting it won't make the deficit go away, it's an imaginary solution to the problem.

In which country?