It seems a plan by The Los Angeles Times to sound the alarm on art funding may have backfired.
President Trump’s proposed budget plan could result in cuts to the National Endowment for the Arts, which received $148 million from the federal government last year.
The L.A. Times may have chosen the wrong example to use in its argument against defunding the NEA in a piece published on Thursday.
— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) March 16, 2017
That should settle it.
@redsteeze Well that made it even easier, defund it.
— Mark Nova (@imarknova) March 16, 2017
— Dr. Kankokage (@kankokage) March 16, 2017
Never mind that the L.A. Times is calling for federal subsidies for works like “Hamilton” which can cost you nearly $1,000 a ticket to see.
Don’t defund the NEA or that play that 99.999% of America didn’t see might not get made. https://t.co/zH9Jmq8gUA
— JavelinaBomb (@javelinabomb) March 16, 2017
— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) March 16, 2017
— Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) March 16, 2017
A play that is so expensive most Americans can’t afford a SINGLE TICKET. But do go on about taxpayer funding. https://t.co/7moqnPiXcL
— ?Black Russian? (@StacyOnTheRight) March 16, 2017
Citing the play as a reason to keep funding flowing will probably not win over the president. Trump waged a Twitter feud with the cast of the musical last year after an actor lectured then-Vice President-elect Mike Pence about inclusion after a performance.
Twitter users had plenty of responses to the L.A. Times’ poor choice “Hamilton” to advocate government funding, unless they were trying to defund it the whole time.
Wake up right! Receive our free morning news blast HERE
Without public funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, you wouldn’t have hip hop history musicals that cost $400+ per ticket. Wait. https://t.co/kyiJeiMLAd
— T. Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) March 16, 2017
And then what would an Upper East Sider spend the equivalent of a West Virginian’s annual salary on? https://t.co/RqEJr4Pk7v
— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) March 16, 2017
@latimes You mean rich progressive liberal democrats would have to bear the financial responsibility to entertain themselves? ??????
— Jake R. (@jaker1419) March 16, 2017
— SFLTV BossMan (@SFLTVBossMan) March 17, 2017
Oh, you want to subsidize musicals that only rich people can afford the tickets to? Let them fund their own amusements. @latimes
— Jim Branch (@jamesbranch3) March 16, 2017
@latimes give government money to arts that make a ton of money already, isn’t this the rich getting richer?
— Loren C (@LorenSethC) March 16, 2017
@latimes Are you trying to convince me it’s a good idea to get rid of the NEA?
— Red Elephant Army (@RedElephantArmy) March 16, 2017
— JAG (@Drum747) March 16, 2017
Defund it completely https://t.co/npBNykPDdZ
— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) March 16, 2017
— Dixie Hawk (@HawkinsRandy) March 17, 2017
@redsteeze This play has made a bajillion dollars! They charge a fortune to get in! Why are we giving taxpayer money to something like this?
— Egon Alter (@AlterEgon75) March 16, 2017
@latimes Not exactly persuasive.
— Albert Camus (@SalsaPrice) March 16, 2017
@latimes that’s not making the compelling argument you think it is
— Sane Thoughts (@LibertAmerican) March 16, 2017
@latimes You just made the case to defund. Sold!
— Anmarie (@LiberalHeretic) March 16, 2017
- 52 passengers boarded plane with neg Covid results, test positive after landing in Hong Kong - April 26, 2021
- Supreme Court agrees to hear major gun rights case on concealed handguns - April 26, 2021
- Final Census data shows the blue states likely to lose House seats, and the red states picking them up - April 26, 2021