Spending on Advancing the Arts is the Proper use of Public Resourses

"As long as people in society are hungry or unemployed or lack the basic skills necessary to survive, public resources to support art to spend money when people consider all the possibilities It is not appropriate to use people.People are pitiable to those who are experiencing hunger and unemployment but the government insists that unemployment and money hungry people should spend a lot of money on hungry people Eliminate art from the use of public resources by considering the problem of hunger and survival faced by a few people.

First of all, the living economy will decide that you are married. Logically, you basically designed your married life's promised life. Commitment means to concentrate and concentrate the most important resources on one relationship of money, time, emotion, and health. Essentially, your life. think! In this case, we should not have dishonesty. Now we know that we should be married because we can afford partners in life ... and we know that this means that the family with children and relatives now is given It is. This means that you can fall in love. Anyway, if you have the ability to have sex, enjoy it!

It is a very good article. 99% of articles like Globle Health are focused on issues other than per capita consumption. It is one of the poorest countries in the world with one of the least renewable resources and it is clear that per capita consumption of natural resources is more important than the population. For example, the energy consumed at work at an international school is about the same as that of 1,000 rural schools in Nepal. Thank you

Given the complexity of the federal budget and the number of programs that are thought to be related to art (including military bands and educational works) it is difficult to compare the total expenditure of art in the United States with the total expenditure of arts in other developed countries . However, per capita federal government funds for art through NEA are negligible compared to countries like Finland, France and Germany. However, in the United States there is a unique art financing system that has proven to be effective in developing a large-scale artistic economy in the past 52 years. For example, the premise of the NEA Fund is to combine funds from state art institutions, which is a powerful driving force for the state to continue to revitalize the local art fund. This will promote the establishment of the State Arts Committee in all 50 states, and about 5,000 fund groups will be established at the local level.

Looking at the figures, the US is already at the bottom of the list of Western countries from the perspective of public art spending. According to a study by the Canadian Arts Council I read, Finland uses 1% of the national budget for art. Germany spends 79%. The United States spends 0.13% of the budget on public art. This led those who doubt that the real motivation behind the idea of ​​abolishing the NEA is not to save money. We are definitely looking at the artistic awkwardness of the choice of social artistic public expenditure. People only need to remember the constitutionism of the Soviet era and they can find examples of art by public funds that are simply converted into advertisements that support the cruelty of dictators. This is a very powerful argument for maintaining government funds for artistic creation. Of course, I decide that artistic creation is not getting better in the free market.