These people don't get it. What happens when these "artists" begin to starve? Do we then have to support them? Bullshit!!!

Go get a real job. Out of all of the singers and instrument players, how many can actually make a living off it. Maybe 3-5%. Same with painters, and other artists. There is only so much culture that any society can afford to support on a large scale.

These liberals are living in a dream world.

And if you are an Ohio citizen make sure you sign the ballot initiative petition and vote to limit the health care reform in Ohio.

You;d be surprised by how many people think they have the right to persue activities that make them feel fulfilled, with the rest of us picking up their healthcare. And, really, picking up everything else. The moms group I got kicked out of was chock FULL of them.

Being an artist can be a real job.

Problem is you have to have talent.

The greatest art in history was almost always paid for by a single man. A king, the prince of a city, an emperor, a wealthy merchant, someone who wanted something remarkable created.

Whomever it might be, the end state was that a great artist would be found, and the funding would be provided to pay for said artistic work.

Great art is not as a rule, created by committee.

Oh man! You mean I did not need to work that "Big Girl" job for years as I put my sons through college, paid off my debt and saved money to start my creative dream job?!! So does this mean that I don't need to live within my means now on the reduced income I prepared myself for during this career transition? WOW!!

In all seriousness though-I spent the last 18 plus years as a corporate compliance officer, raising my sons and pursuing my artistic and self fullfillment interests in my spare time. I have worked very hard to set myself up for a career change responsibly, this means paying for insurance myself, knowing I could still eat and being prepared to have a more modest income than I had become accustomed to.

Being "job locked" made me work harder to be able to do something different, it also made me continue my pursuits as I could fit them in and remain passionate.

When I imagine having the journey the way it was, I do not think I would enjoy what I am doing half as much or feel as comfortable with it without the struggle, wait and enduring commitment for it.

"These people don't get it. What happens when these "artists" begin to starve? Do we then have to support them? Bullshit!!!"

You will feed them too. Food stamps. I am not kidding.

Read about it here: http://tinyurl.com/yzyhzb9

Folks, this is what a ruined nation looks like. We can do this because there is enough money, for now, to pay for such idiocy as paying young, healthy people to not work. For now.

As an artist myself (yes, with a day job, of course!) in the NYC area, even I think that this idea is a dumb one.

Think about all of society's sponges who will come out of the woodwork, calling themselves 'artists', just to get this lovely subsidy...it will be like a welfare state. This already happens in downtrodden cities where there is low-income artist housing. And the result will be that the quality of art will totally suck, or not exist at all.

In Holland years ago they decided to subsidize all artists with housing, money, etc. (ahh, socialism). The result was 10 years of the worst Dutch art ever produced.

I'm not romanticizing poverty, because economic instability sucks for anyone. But artists have to have something to make their work about. Making work about that monthly govt. check that keeps them cozy and unmotivated is not going to get the quality of their art to improve.

There are a LOT of us who are out there busting our asses, in between paying gigs, in order to make work that we believe in. If the non-artists and haters took a close look at the dirty work involved, they will see there's no 'luxury' in choosing to spend time doing something they find fulfilling. The reality is that we work twice as hard and make 1/2 as much...and it's our choice...

I'd rather pay my own way...as a working person (both paid and unpaid) I hate those who milk the system as much as anyone else. And hard work, not a government subsidy, makes good art.

I wish Pelosi would quit her job and let us support her. It would cost a whole lot less!

And to think, my Uncle Bob could have avoided working some sh!t job full time and jamming out with his band on weekends. He could have jammed out full time!

Thank you for easing the burden on future musicians, Nancy. /MUCHO SARCASMO

People confuse art with the art classes of childhood, which are (perhaps properly) all about encouragement. If you suck as an artist, you deserve the feedback of having no support from the community... Then you can properly decide how much it means to you.

"These people don't get it. What happens when these "artists" begin to starve? Do we then have to support them? Bullshit!!!"

And then when they make it big, the RIAA and MPAA become their defenders, as they (the artists) deserve compensation for their work!

As for Pelosi, what do you expect from a gal who surrounds herself with kids as she's sworn in as speaker or whinges about "nazis" showing up to healthcare debates with a crying press conference sideshow.

You just don't understand!!

These artists are destitute because of you - you fried-chicken-gobblin', hee-haw-lookin' pervert!

The artist is in exactly the same position as the modern liberal: unappreciated for their utter genius by the wholly ignorant masses.

That means you.

Of course they look out for each other. How do you suppose those artists voted?

Starving artists are the best kind. It thins out the herd. And I say that as an artist.

At first I was opposed to this. Then I realized ... I am an artist! I sold a few paintings when I was younger so clearly I am an artist. Sweet!

But in all seriousness, based on the selling of those paintings I could probably only cover my materials (paint, canvas, replacement brushes) costs.

I have a niece who is a good artist. She was sent by Mexico several times to Europe on an artist exchange.

Actually, she destroyed all but one of the paintings which would have made her world famous. Ten or fifteen years ago, she learned after surgery for ovarian cysts that she cannot ever have children.

She went into a major depression, and painted lanky women, looking as if they had escaped from Hell. Or, maybe not.

Dark, dark, vivid colors.

And, they exuded drops of blood from their skin.

When I saw those photos, I wanted to vomit; I wanted to cry; to see what was in my niece's heart. The little niece who went to Yellowstone with us when she was 11. The niece who sat by the park near our house as squirrels ran up and ate nuts she put out for them, inches from her feet. I wanted to destroy those paintings, yet I also wanted to have them.

When she got over her depression, she could not bear to look at those paintings, and destroyed them all but one.

A customer once saw that surviving painting, and asked to buy it. (I bet he did!!!)

To make it clear it was not for sale, she stated the price, "Three thousand dollars," a very large amount of money for a painting by a non-famous Mexican artist. To put it into perspective, that is over two years of minimum wage in Mexico City.

He didn't even blink, and said, "Okay."

She had to renege and tell him it was private and not for sale.

In my opinion, if those pictures had been kept, and released, she would be world famous in a short time.

I felt sick when I heard she had destroyed them. I assume you all know she can't possibly do such work now.

She has given some of her work to every member of the family but me. She has never even mentioned it, so I assume she well knows I would ask for the remaining depressed picture.

And, if I got it, I would cover it, and never, ever look at it. It is definitely a love-hate relationship.

I am not an art expert at all, but one need no art knowledge to know those were powerful pictures.

That's a pretty quick sound bite.

Most people commenting here are working under some strange assumption that there will be a government check coming to those that wish to not be "job-locked". That simply isn't the case and is probably not what Speaker Pelosi is saying.

The health care bill does not give health care to anybody. It simply means that you don't have to work for a giant corporation to enjoy the benefits of collective bargaining that these large pools of people traditionally enjoy. It creates a pool for the rest of us and makes perfect sense in the context of capitalism. It isn't universal healthcare. It isn't socialism. It's simple economics and the healthcare insurance industry is better off for it. They have more customers. This would be of interest to any community of entrepreneurial and small business types, including artists. I'm guessing Speaker Pelosi was talking to a group of artists and tailored her speech to them.

Where in that very short sound bite does Ms. Pelosi say that artists will no longer have to support themselves? Where does she say that there will be a government check on the way? You're knees are all jerking like crazy.

Most people commenting here are working under some strange assumption that there will be a government check coming to those that wish to not be "job-locked". That simply isn't the case and is probably not what Speaker Pelosi is saying.

Do you honestly believe that they won't try to expand the NEA; as if it should actually exist in the first place?

Yes art. Like the cement cut out sections of sewer drains they put on campus at the local University that are supposed to be art. I shit you not. I wonder what the university paid for those pieces of shit. Pun intended. I suppose they got a grant aka taxpayer dollars so some schmuck could rave that his art was all over the local campus. Hell I know some guys in construction that would have left that stuff in the middle of the night as a joke.

Has anyone seen the art/paintings that someobne made when they handed an elephant a paint brush?
They went gaga over them and any elementary kid could have done the same thing.

I can't afford an elephant so I plan on purchasing a monkey and giving it a paint brush and canvas. I will convince everyone that this is wonderful abstract art and if they can see it through the mind of the chimp they will realize how wonderful it is. And if man hadn't suppressed these wonderful primates we would have a lot more primate art.

That monkey should be paying for itself in no time and then I can upgrade my cable to the premium package.

"Do you honestly believe that they won't try to expand the NEA; as if it should actually exist in the first place?"

I wasn't aware that we were talking about the NEA. I thought we were talking about health care. Just for fun, I'll address the NEA. Although I hope that you will understand how off topic it is.

The NEA is a whole different animal. While many very reasonable people would disagree with me, I think that the NEA is worthwhile. It is hard to argue with the simple logic that the government has no business funding art. However, I feel that my own life has been enriched through the efforts of the NEA. I grew up in Washington D.C. and had access to programs at places like the Kennedy Center. I was lucky, it was cool, and it made my life happier.

So, for my part, I'll vote to keep the NEA rolling. I'm all for having a happier and more enriched life. However, I completely understand the logic of those who are against the notion.

I'll also stand by my original point that Speaker Pelosi was not promising a government paycheck for artists or other small business people and self starters. Only that the health care reforms make it easier for such self starters to get in on the same health care options as those that are working for large corporations with the purchasing power to get a good deal.

"It simply means that you don't have to work for a giant corporation to enjoy the benefits of collective bargaining that these large pools of people traditionally enjoy. It creates a pool for the rest of us and makes perfect sense in the context of capitalism."

You don't understand pooling and pricing of insurance by actuarial data.

The reason health insurance is relatively affordable (but not cheap) to large corporations' employees is because those pools are created without insurance in mind. The pools contain lots of people with predictable, stable lives who provide juicy actuarial studies for the companies. The companies can make one point of sale at the corporate office. Put simply, those employee groups are generally healthy-people pools creating for another purpose besides insurance. And they can be sold one large policy, not 100,000 smaller ones via commission-based sales forces.

Now, anyone else can buy that same insurance, but the price is different for regular joes because of adverse selection by people seeking it. If you are unfamiliar with "Adverse Selection", look it up in Wiki. Very important concept in insurance underwriting and pricing decisions.

By contrast, corporate employee pools help insurance companies avoid that adverse selection risk by creating an uncorrelated filter for insurance companies.

So as I said, anyone can buy that insurance, but because the risk profile and sales channel to regular joes is different, the price of the insurance is different. Now, if you think that we can extend the *real* benefits of that Big Co employee health insurance--pricing and prequalification--you are wrong. We can extend the coverage, yes, but the price will need to be higher, much higher, in order to cover the greater losses almost certainly resulting from the population pool involved.

"It's simple economics and the healthcare insurance industry is better off for it. They have more customers."

I agree your economic model is "simple", it is also incorrect. More customers for an insurance company is not the same as "better". If you require those new customers to receive a premium quote below the proper price for the policy risk, you will be killing the company with each such customer you impose on them. And as the old business joke goes, if the insurance company is losing money on each marginal sale to such customers, there is no way to make it profitable through volume.

Unless, of course, you are willing to let insurance companies actually rate the policies according to risk and charge an appropriate premium. (laughter) I know that is not your view, because those policies will be--as any self-employed soul will tell you--shockingly high on a relative basis.

It may be good policy to provide health care to indigent people. It may be good policy to subsidize insurance premiums for poor people. But what you suggest is so ill-formed it is not even wrong.

The worst part about this debate, though, is how people claim that these simple truths about insurance are not true here. "This time, in this situation, things are different!", they yell.

No, they aren't. As we will see.

Hi Spartee,
You're argument is very well formed. It is extremely possible that you know more about actuarial data than me. In fact, I'd bet a lot of money on it. I don't know a damned thing about actuarial data.

You said, "The companies can make one point of sale at the corporate office. Put simply, those employee groups are generally healthy-people pools creating for another purpose besides insurance."

I agree about the benefit of a single point of sale -- and that is the benefit that I am trying to make a case for. However, I only halfway agree with the notion of those employee groups being more healthy than the entrepreneurial population. I could imagine that being true, but suspect that it isn't necessarily the case. Why wouldn't the self employed be every bit as healthy as those associated with corporations?

As we have already established, you know a lot more about actuarial data than I do. So, suppose it is the case that these low life, drug addicted, on the dole, dirtbag, self employed Americans are more unhealthy than someone working for a large company. (By the way, that was uncalled for and I know that it misrepresents what you are saying. It's kind of funny though, so I'm not going to delete it before posting.) I imagine that even if they are substantially more unhealthy than the others, the sheer numbers would make the profits or losses come out in the wash.

Meanwhile, I really don't care if the insurance companies make slightly less profit if more Americans can avoid living on the edge of homelessness. A lousy broken leg should not be able to sink a family. I guess that makes me "liberal".

>>I guess that makes me "liberal".

Yes, I guess it does.

Actually, if a lousy broken leg sinks a family, it was pretty well sunk already, wasn't it?

If people ate properly and exercised reasonably, which does not mean a gym membership, need for medical treatment would drop at least 50%.

You liberals expect others to take care of you, don't you?

Furthermore, the comment about slightly less profits was pure fiction. No one cares if they make slightly less profit. It is expected they will be out of business in a very short time.

I am guessing you assume insurance companies make a high percentage of return, right? Those figures have been available for quite a while.

JonQ, since you're new here, you need to spend some time reading back through Amy's archives. We've already addressed (and destroyed) the arguments you make, many many times. A lie does not become the truth by repetition.

"The NEA is a whole different animal. While many very reasonable people would disagree with me, I think that the NEA is worthwhile."

You've got to be kidding. I've seen plenty of NEA-funded art, and almost without exception, it was pure trash. The typical NEA art exhibition consists of randomly assembled collages of whatever the artist happened to have laying around (at least one of which inevitably will contain bodily excretions of some sort), overlaid with left-wing political ranting. And each one will have a little sign next to it, telling the viewer what they are required to think of it. It's juvenile, talentless naval-gazing.

My wife and I try to patronize non-NEA-supported artists to the extent that we can, and there is some good stuff out there. I've got some gorgeous black-and-white photography from a Florida photographer, which is currently waiting for me to frame it and put it up in my rec room.

"You liberals expect others to take care of you, don't you?"

C'mon irelandes, really? By the way, I already have nice socialized healthcare through my modest little job of defending the nation for the last eighteen years. I'll be heading overseas AGAIN in a few months. And by the way, the new healthcare bill is not government healthcare and it doesn't hand anybody anything. You're right Cousin Dave, a lie does not become truth by repetition.

Concerning the NEA, "If your art can't make it in the marketplace, and you can't get people to donate to support it, you should keep that job at wherever until you improve enough to make your work marketable." I generally agree with this statement, however, I believe that it is worthwhile to support certain bits of our national heritage and culture through tough times.

Jazz, for example, is as American as it gets. All over the world, our rich culture is recognized and celebrated through this medium. Though it does have its ups and downs in terms of commercially viable popularity, I think it would be an absolute shame and a national disgrace if we didn't have anybody new around to cultivate such a distinctly American and beautiful art form.

Cousin Dave, I think you may be citing a very few cases that have been sensationalized in the media like the Maplethorpe thing years ago. How do you know you are attending an event that has been NEA backed? They are fairly 'behind the scenes' unless something like the Maplethorpe thing gets blown the hell out of proportion. By the way, I'm more of a fan of the performing arts than the static sort -- that's just me.

Okay, I'm done with the political stuff. I'll slowly back away and we can all once again join forces to shout at some anonymous letter writer that she should "Dump that clown!"

Take care,
Jon

I'm trying to come up with the appropriate word for someone who is forced to buy "art" which he otherwise would not.

Hostage? Victim? Taxpayer? Forced purchaser of velvet Elvis paintings?

I make the appropriate choices based on my resources and desires. If i don't want it, I don't buy it. If I can't afford it, I do without. Our President and Congress could use the lesson.

"How do you know you are attending an event that has been NEA backed? "

Because they usually have big signs at the door saying so, at least when it comes to painting / photography / sculpture showings.

While I hate this women with a passion for other reasons. I don't disagree with her statement just with her view of humanity. This is the same blind optimism that makes socialism sound like a good idea to some, mainly bright eyed and bounce tailed college freshmen.

She's actually convinced that if most people were freed from the shackles of having to support themselves they would transcend. That an artist freed from the mundane can reach the peak of perfection, hone his skill and produce works of as yet unattained beauty. Where in fact the fucker will probably waste his/her days on Xbox live. Doing nothing more noble than violating the English language like one would a $5 dollar blow up doll.

As the sainted Robert Heinlein said: "a state supported artist is an incompetent whore".

"It's simple economics and the healthcare insurance industry is better off for it."

Glad you left. My Federal contractor has produced a not-for distribution company letter which outlines the increases in cost and lower service level they are being forced to provide. Better for who, did you say? That was the goal, was it?

Change of subject:

Gary Musselman?

JonQ: A hard truth is that 18 years in the military will leave you unprepared for a discussion about economics and free markets, unless you are pursuing a degree in such things in your spare moments or have a very avid interest in them.

In economics, there is a rich body of concepts, terms of art, modes of analysis and other tools that are not just jargon to confound the initiate; they are tools to permit quicker exchange of ideas among the people conversing.

The military often does the same thing with its subculture patois of acronyms and cliches, which serve to communciate concepts among military personnel, and even wrap up whole converstions, in very short bursts.

If you don't have familiarity with the relevant patois--whether in economics or grunt speak--entering a conversation with the more experienced folks will typically result in some baleful looks. You are experiencing some of that here. It is, I think, similar to what you would see in the unit if someone starting expressing strong opinions about the utility of suppressing fire in close quarters combat...but did not know what caliber a bullet M4s shoot. You generally should know the basics before engaging in the debate.

Hi again Spartee,

I like your idea of wrapping up whole conversations in short bursts. So I wonder why you didn't practice what you preach and come right out and say, "Hey, JonQ, you're an idiot. Go back to the kid's table." Why did you use so many words to say it?

Rather than typing so many unnecessary words to try to prove how "smart" I am, I'll embrace your notion of brevity. Here it goes:

You're a pretentious asshole.

P.S. - I'm not a grunt, you prick.

Well, you used the word 'pretentious' sothat rules out the Marines as well

You might be right, JonQ, I might well be a pretentious asshole. We all have flaws.

But I did not call you an idiot. I called you unfamilier with the basics of a discipline that takes years of study to understand. There is no shame in that; none of us are expert in anything more than a precious few topics.