Honestly, I can respect how a lot of people don't see a need for the government to fund the arts. I tend to get snarky about it when the same people are all for funding ridiculous programs that will only add to our national debt and force people who are ideologically against these things to pay for it.

I see this as a chicken/egg problem. Artists need some kind of budget to create their art. This may come from investors or a benefactor, but unless you have some kind of portfolio to convince people to invest in you, how will you ever create anything? I think a small amount of money provided by the federal government is a fine way to encourage people not to fear pursuing a career as an artist. It also sends a message to the rest of the world that we are an open society that encourages personal growth and critical thinking. As pointed out above, this is a minuscule amount of funding. Cutting it off does little to help our national debt and only sends the message that you don't want people thinking too hard.

Public radio and television are some of the only worthwhile stations you can get for content that isn't mindless, consumerist drivel. Get rid of them and the world is one step closer to being Walmart.

And the government needs to fund these why? Most of the best TV and radio I consume doesn't come from government, but from the free market. As for art, I can't even think of a solely government funded musician I would entertain the idea of listening to.

You're ****in' stupid. "I'd rather have a wall than art."

I find your idea of stimulating TV and radio to be dubious, but the vast majority of non-public TV and radio cater to the lowest common denominator, including many supposedly "educational" channels. Public radio and television have resisted government interference and are actually some of the least biased sources for most any kind of information, even if NPR does have a liberal bent, and since neither of them are dependent upon catering to morons they don't have to degrade themselves like CNN or Fox News or the History Channel do.

The UK frequently provides grants to musicians to aid them in making a name for themselves abroad. This is why we've had multiple "British Invasions". Like an English band? Chances are they got government aid. You don't think something like this would benefit American musicians?

And I highly doubt that there would have been a punk movement in Britain if all of those guys weren't on the dole and living in squats.

Let the market decide what art gets and our culture will be built on the taste of teenyboppers with 100% disposable income.

Exactly. Many bands have noted that if it weren't for being on the dole, they wouldn't have had the time or determination to make it as a band.

I personally don't like it or consume it, therefore it's not needed for anyone else.

Yup. Showing your true colors there Goof. A proud hard right conservative. Screw everyone else. It's all about me.