SCREEN-L Archives

February 1995, Week 1


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Paul Ramaeker <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Mon, 6 Feb 1995 15:00:21 CST
text/plain (33 lines)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Larry writes:
>"The fact is $285 million in tax dollars are
>being spent. Is this subsidy truly necessary?"
>This really gets to the crux of the matter. ie:Should the fed. govn't support
>the arts......AT ALL?
>...and more importantly, can it AFFORD to?
>look, if the bowheads who now populate the Congress were REALLY serious about
>balancing the budget, they would start with serious spending, not the nickel
>& dime stuff. For what we get from it, the NEA & the CPB are probably the
>best federally-supported organizations out there.
>Think about it, if YOU were in debt up to your ass, where would you cut back
>first? Instead of renting a $1000/month apt, maybe get one that's $750? or
>just cut out the ONE movie a year that you see? Now that's the perportion
>that weere talking about, $3000/$7, which is the REAL saving...
>Cutting the miniscule amount that is spent on the CPB & NEA is a TOKEN thrown
>to the masses so that Newt can say "look, I'm saving money!"...meanwhile, he
>and his cronies will vote themselves another pay raise and continue to ignore
>the cuts that Gore has ALREADY implemented...
>my 2 cents
>[log in to unmask]
Good point, Freelancer. Personally, if I were in trouble, financially, I'd
buy fewer guns, figuring billions of dollars worth of them was plenty.