If using a play that has raked in $100 of millions is not the best argument for forcing taxpayers to subsidize the arts, nothing is! #Caring https://t.co/oEReF6VXYu
— Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) March 16, 2017
Oh, the humanity! Add the L.A. Times to the list of media outlets flipping their lids over Trump’s budget, which could result in funding cuts to, among other things, the National Endowment for the Arts:
What is the National Endowment for the Arts? Without it, we wouldn't have 'Hamilton' https://t.co/acOwG7usWv pic.twitter.com/v1b2raYVYh
— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) March 16, 2017
What? No “Hamilton”?! Well, that’s it, then:
Well then I think it's settled.#AbolishTheNEA https://t.co/BywZLqPyiS
— Dr. Kankokage (@kankokage) March 16, 2017
Hey, it’s really the only sensible option.
Defund it completely https://t.co/npBNykPDdZ
— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) March 16, 2017
@redsteeze Well that made it even easier, defund it.
— Mark Nova (@imarknova) March 16, 2017
@latimes You just made the case to defund. Sold!
— Anmarie (@LiberalHeretic) March 16, 2017
Seriously, though. If “Hamilton” is the best reason the L.A. Times can come up with to keep government money flowing to the NEA, then they’ve got nothin’.
@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 not sure you're going to win converts with this line of argument.
— Brandon A. Crook (@bacrook24) March 16, 2017
Wow, really selling it to middle America. https://t.co/zH9Jmq8gUA
— JavelinaBomb (@javelinabomb) March 16, 2017
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
. @HamiltonMusical is grossing $1.9 million a week. Grossing. Every week. https://t.co/tUvKrazgz8
— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) March 16, 2017
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
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
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
D’oh.
@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
That time the @latimes accidentally argued to completely abolish the NEA and was successful in their argument :https://t.co/IPaKsiSvrK
— JAG (@Drum747) March 16, 2017
***
Related:
SHOCKER: ‘Hamilton’ star who rapped about Obamacare will fundraise for Hillary
