See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Hot Air » Blog Archive » The Hollywood stimulus; Update: Hollywood loses its pork
2. $246 million bailout for hollywood! Maybe another 1 billion coming! | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
3. $246 million Hollywood bailout goes down; $1 trillion more to go! — But As For Me
4. The American Pundit » Blog Archive » Senate GOP Strips Bailout for Hollywood, Blocks Extra $25 Billion
5. McCain Finds His Niz-uts « JoHNBRoDiGaNDoTCoM
6. 2/3- Views from the Heartland: Other Blogs « American Heartland Bar and Grill
7. Fiscal Suicide: Dr. Coburn’s Got the Cure « JoHNBRoDiGaNDoTCoM
8. Michelle Malkin » Sen. Coburn: Obama’s stimulus is “morally reprehensible” and “the worst act of generational theft in our nation’s history”

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #610845
   On February 3rd, 2009 at 4:46 pm, cpodug said:

   “That’s one small step for a man … “

2. #610849
   On February 3rd, 2009 at 4:49 pm, bluesoc said:

   I thought tax breaks stimulated economic activity.

3. #610852
   On February 3rd, 2009 at 4:51 pm, Grayson said:

   On February 3rd, 2009 at 4:46 pm, cpodug said:

   “That’s one small step for a man … “

   …and one kick in the shins to elitist Hollywood scum.

4. #610858
   On February 3rd, 2009 at 4:55 pm, simcoe said:

   That’s a wrap!

5. #610870
   On February 3rd, 2009 at 5:02 pm, Southpaw said:

   Just proves there are 45 total morons in the Senate:
   2008 Box Office Receipts
   (I hear January was record as well)

   Hey Senate: 177-0

6. #610872
   On February 3rd, 2009 at 5:02 pm, conservativesRus said:

   On February 3rd, 2009 at 4:49 pm, bluesoc said:
   I thought tax breaks stimulated economic activity.

   Don’t think too hard now bluesoc – if you can explain how that particular reduction in taxes stimulates anything you get bonus points.

7. #610874
   On February 3rd, 2009 at 5:07 pm, DagneyT said:

   After Senator Cornyn’s lamentable vote for Geithner, I sent a scathing e-mail, and tried to follow up with a call when the “Democrap supporter pay-off bill” got to the Senate. Unable to get through to his office (apparently I’m not his only upset constituent), I faxed him.

   Here’s the content I sent, and after sending it to him, I know of at least one other who borrowed the text, and faxed it as well;
   

   I was appalled when you voted for Geithner! How in good conscience could you agree to put a tax cheater in charge of the IRS? I tried to call your office, but was unable to get through, so I know I am not the only one of your constituents to feel that way!
   I am praying you will be stronger when it comes to the so-called “Stimulus Package”, and that all GOP senators will stand firm on what is in reality the “pay-back” to the Democrat groups who got them into power. A “40 year wish list” I’ve heard it described, and from what I’ve read, it’s an accurate description. It should not be considered under any circumstance. We are sick and tired of you Republicans buckling to Democrat pressure. You all need to grow your backbones again!

   Feel free to use it for your own weasel! Thanks to you, Michelle, and others, the content is getting out to outraged Americans. Now y’all need to brace yourselves, because the “Fairness Doctrine” is going to soon follow. As Michelle Bachman recently said, “They’re so full of themselves, they would not recognize they are overstepping! They feel invulnerable.” This will shine a light on the new media, and they will be coming after us, guaranteed!

8. #610880
   On February 3rd, 2009 at 5:11 pm, jdubya said:

   Can you publish who voted for it?

   I would like to know who is a supporter of these Free Actors Guild celebutarts.

9. #610891
   On February 3rd, 2009 at 5:23 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

   On February 3rd, 2009 at 5:11 pm, jdubya said:
   Can you publish who voted for it?

   All (D)’s and an (R) from Maine I bet.

10. #610896
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 5:30 pm, RogerCfromSD said:

    **feeling more than a little embarrassed for bluesoc**

    Oh, dear…

11. #610901
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 5:34 pm, chapoutier said:

    All (D)’s and an (R) from Maine I bet.

    Nope.

    Vitter.

    Lousiana is pushing into the filmmaking business big time. Shreveport is the location for a ton of big budget movies and shows now. The state offers very very good tax incentive for crews.

12. #610910
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 5:41 pm, FamilyMan said:

    RogerCfromSD said:
    **feeling more than a little embarrassed for bluesoc**
    Oh, dear…

    I was going to say something provocative to bluesoc, but I just couldn’t bring myself to do it.

13. #610941
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 6:19 pm, bluesoc said:

    Don’t think too hard now bluesoc – if you can explain how that particular reduction in taxes stimulates anything you get bonus points.

    That’s easy. If I read the article correctly, the bill would simply lower the taxes studios pay on the equipment that they use (including film). This will lower the cost of making a movie, which means more movies will be made, which means more jobs.

14. #610956
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 6:30 pm, Southpaw said:

    That’s easy. If I read the article correctly, the bill would simply lower the taxes studios pay on the equipment that they use (including film). This will lower the cost of making a movie, which means more movies will be made, which means more jobs. cocaine, booze & babes for all.
    We’re talking Hollywood here, not small business America.

15. #610958
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 6:35 pm, bluesoc said:

    which means more movies will be made, which means more jobs. cocaine, booze & babes for all.
    We’re talking Hollywood here, not small business America.

    Dinsey, one of the companies who was in favor of the bill, employs 137,000 people. You’re right. We’re not talking small business America.

16. #610969
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 6:53 pm, av8tr said:

    Maybe bluesoc’s onto something here…

    Hollywood could be pouring out more blockbusters like “Rendition” or “Lions for Lambs” or “In the Valley of Elah”. Just think how many jobs would be created… More George cLooney masterpieces…

    OK – Somebody wake me up. Little nightmare here.

17. #610981
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 7:03 pm, bluesoc said:

    Hollywood could be pouring out more blockbusters like “Rendition” or “Lions for Lambs” or “In the Valley of Elah”. Just think how many jobs would be created… More George cLooney masterpieces…

    Hollywood only makes movies if they think they’ll make money. Those movies you listed flopped. I’m pretty sure you won’t see many more like them in the near future.

    I know people don’t believe it, but Hollywood is a BUSINESS. Their first priority is making money, not indoctrinating the public.

18. #610996
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 7:22 pm, Grayson said:

    Their first priority is making money, not indoctrinating the public.

    I think think somebody better tell them that then; because they seem to have missed the memo.

19. #611004
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 7:30 pm, Joy said:

    I’ll pass on having my tax dollars going to a bunch of limosine liberals who do nothing but trash our country, our servicemen, and our President (as long as they have an R after their name).

    I also don’t want to help pay for a bunch of trashy, vulgar movies. Let the people who want to see them pay for them.

    One movie I am looking forward to though is the one depicting Obama getting assasinated, like the one they did about Bush.

    disclaimer: The last paragraph was sarcasm. Unlike the deranged left, I would not like to see such a film.

20. #611007
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 7:33 pm, bluesoc said:

    I’ll pass on having my tax dollars going to a bunch of limosine liberals who do nothing but trash our country, our servicemen, and our President (as long as they have an R after their name).

    It’s a tax break, so technically none of your tax dollars will be going to them.

21. #611041
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 8:00 pm, Southpaw said:

    On February 3rd, 2009 at 6:35 pm, bluesoc said:
    Dinsey, one of the companies who was in favor of the bill, employs 137,000 people. You’re right. We’re not talking small business America.

    Two years ago a business park near me (12 buildings, approx. 100 offices)was full. Now it is a ghost town. Giving tax breaks to Hollywood is not going to help small businesses.

22. #611059
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 8:18 pm, bluesoc said:

    Two years ago a business park near me (12 buildings, approx. 100 offices)was full. Now it is a ghost town. Giving tax breaks to Hollywood is not going to help small businesses.

    Film studios spend a lot of money when they make a film. There’s no way that small businesses will not be directly or indirectly effected (for the better) when Hollywood makes more films. Perhaps it won’t effect your local economy, but that does not mean that it will not have a beneficial effect somewhere in America.

23. #611071
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 8:40 pm, Joy said:

    bluesoc – I stand corrected. And I do appreciate your pointing it out.

    I still don’t want to see Hollywood get any breaks at all. The two most corrupt places in the US are Washington, DC and Hollyweird.

    Care to guess WHY Hollyweird was chosen as a recipient for tax breaks?

24. #611115
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 9:56 pm, Republicanvet said:

    On February 3rd, 2009 at 5:34 pm, chapoutier said:

    Lousiana is pushing into the filmmaking business big time. Shreveport is the location for a ton of big budget movies and shows now. The state offers very very good tax incentive for crews.

    …which you think would be a hint to Hollyweird.

    But then, Montreal was the hot spot for movies recently because of the cost (union and otherwise) of filming in Hollyweird.

25. #611116
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 9:57 pm, Republicanvet said:

    On February 3rd, 2009 at 6:19 pm, bluesoc said:

    This will lower the cost of making a movie, which means more movies will be made, which means more jobs.

    Outside Hollywood.

26. #611119
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:02 pm, Republicanvet said:

    On February 3rd, 2009 at 7:03 pm, bluesoc said:

    I know people don’t believe it, but Hollywood is a BUSINESS. Their first priority is making money, not indoctrinating the public.

    You really are delusional there BS. The nitwits in Hollywood have been making political statements (then movies) for years going back to China Syndrome with that Skank Fonda.

    Remember when the clueless rabble-rousers actresses were testifying before Congress when their only experience was playing a part in a movie?

    I believe it was Streep.

27. #611122
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:07 pm, Republicanvet said:

    On February 3rd, 2009 at 7:33 pm, bluesoc said:

    It’s a tax break, so technically none of your tax dollars will be going to them.

    Uh, why is it then so many on the left whine when corporations get tax breaks?

28. #611170
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:54 pm, bluesoc said:

    You really are delusional there BS. The nitwits in Hollywood have been making political statements (then movies) for years going back to China Syndrome with that Skank Fonda.

    The China Syndrome was the 4th highest grossing film that year.

29. #611211
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 11:30 pm, bluesoc said:

    Uh, why is it then so many on the left whine when corporations get tax breaks?

    For the same reason people here are upset about hollywood getting a tax break. They think the breaks are political favors and that big corporations are evil.

30. #611215
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 11:33 pm, Republicanvet said:

    On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:54 pm, bluesoc said:

    You really are delusional there BS. The nitwits in Hollywood have been making political statements (then movies) for years going back to China Syndrome with that Skank Fonda.

    The China Syndrome was the 4th highest grossing film that year.

    You said:

    but Hollywood is a BUSINESS. Their first priority is making money, not indoctrinating the public.

    Given your figure, why again do they need tax breaks?

31. #611221
    On February 3rd, 2009 at 11:38 pm, bluesoc said:

    Given your figure, why again do they need tax breaks?

    I don’t follow

32. #611240
    On February 4th, 2009 at 12:09 am, Republicanvet said:

    On February 3rd, 2009 at 11:38 pm, bluesoc said:

    Given your figure, why again do they need tax breaks?

    I don’t follow

    Oy. Obviously.

33. #611245
    On February 4th, 2009 at 12:16 am, mogabi said:

    Tax breaks to the film industry absolutely are an economic benefit to the region offering the benefit. When Hollywood comes to town to film a movie they typically hire lots of local below-the-line crew, use local hotels, eat in local restaurants, etc. When you see a movie next, look at the credits and see how many names you recognize. A lot of those names you don’t recognize are running a small business in the film industry, whether it is set construction, catering, transportation, etc. Hollywood is extremely sub-contracted. The studios run the business side of film making – the actual physical production involves a lot of small businesses.

34. #611252
    On February 4th, 2009 at 12:24 am, bluesoc said:

    Oy. Obviously.

    When I wrote that I was hoping you’d clarify your question.

35. #611285
    On February 4th, 2009 at 1:21 am, FamilyMan said:

    Will someone please put bluesoc out of his misery. He really starting to embarrass himself and he doesn’t even know it.
    GEEES!

36. #611364
    On February 4th, 2009 at 8:12 am, bluesoc said:

    Will someone please put bluesoc out of his misery. He really starting to embarrass himself and he doesn’t even know it.
    GEEES!

    Do you care to tell me what’s wrong with my argument?

37. #611447
    On February 4th, 2009 at 10:04 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    I almost think I should NOT respond to bluesoc but then he IS pulling a typical Liberal/Leftist stunt with his smart mouthed I thought tax breaks stimulated economic activity.

    No bluesoc we are not calling for Tax Breaks, we are calling for tax rate cuts across the board and not targeted breaks as payback for supporting the Democrats in the last election cycle. From what I have been able to deduce so far ALL the spending and targeted tax breaks in these boondoggles are payoffs to Obama/Democratic Party supporters. There is little of anything being proposed that would help the economy is general- it is all pork.

    And that is exactly why bluesoc and other Letist support them and sadly all too many Republicans do also. But nice try bluesoc.
    –
    That Every Man Be Armed–You Too ladies

38. #611451
    On February 4th, 2009 at 10:08 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    Is Nancy Pelosi bluesoc’s mother?

    You will laugh…or cry.
    

    Five hundred million Americans lost their jobs!

39. #611468
    On February 4th, 2009 at 10:20 am, bluesoc said:

    No bluesoc we are not calling for Tax Breaks, we are calling for tax rate cuts across the board and not targeted breaks as payback for supporting the Democrats in the last election cycle.

    Personally, I don’t find your fairness argument very persuasive for a few reasons.

    First, if lower taxes are fundamentally better than high taxes, shouldn’t some low taxes be better than none?

    Second, I understand that you’d like to see a cut across the board. Politically, this is impossible and infeasible. For one thing, Democrats control the legislature (so why not take what you can get?) More importantly, if we were to spread this tax cut over the entire nation, it would likely have very little impact because it’d be so small. Why not target it at a specific industry where the cut may be sufficient enough to actually facilitate growth?

40. #611498
    On February 4th, 2009 at 10:37 am, MrVIBEMAN said:

    Joy said: The two most corrupt places in the US are Washington, DC and Hollyweird.

    You forgot about Chicago, birthplace of all corruption.

41. #611513
    On February 4th, 2009 at 10:47 am, MrVIBEMAN said:

    First, if lower taxes are fundamentally better than high taxes, shouldn’t some low taxes be better than none?

    Lower taxes are better than higher taxes, but giving them to Hollywood is like the Senate giving themselves a tax cut and no one else. It’s PANDERING.

    Second, I understand that you’d like to see a cut across the board. Politically, this is impossible and infeasible.

    Wrong. Just unlikely with the leeches and slime we have in office now.

    For one thing, Democrats control the legislature (so why not take what you can get?) More importantly, if we were to spread this tax cut over the entire nation, it would likely have very little impact because it’d be so small.

    Sooo…instead of giving a small tax cut to all Americans, you’re saying ’screw them’ and just give a big one to Liberal Hollywood.
    IE. Instead of giving a bunch of small raises to your workforce, you just take the big raise for yourself. I mean, either way the money will be spent on the economy right? /sarc/

    Why not target it at a specific industry where the cut may be sufficient enough to actually facilitate growth?

    Like maybe any manufacturing industry in the depressed South? How about an across the board cut of Small Business taxes. Even a small tax cut would help them out. Another good one would be the Construction industry, lower taxes = lower building costs = lower home prices. Man, you could give that same tax break to any of 1000 different industries and have a better effect than giving it to spoiled Hollywood.

42. #611534
    On February 4th, 2009 at 10:58 am, bluesoc said:

    Sooo…instead of giving a small tax cut to all Americans, you’re saying ’screw them’ and just give a big one to Liberal Hollywood.
    IE. Instead of giving a bunch of small raises to your workforce, you just take the big raise for yourself. I mean, either way the money will be spent on the economy right?

    Any corporate tax cut could go to taxpayers. There are other benefits to be had when they go to corporations rather than individuals.

    Like maybe any manufacturing industry in the depressed South?

    California’s economy isn’t exactly flourishing right now, either.

    Again, all I’m hearing is “it isn’t fair”

43. #611574
    On February 4th, 2009 at 11:29 am, MrVIBEMAN said:

    If Hollywood was in need of a tax cut it would be a different story. They’re not in danger of going out of business anytime soon like so many other business’s out there.

    So the only logical purpose for giving a tax cut to a business that isn’t in trouble is for political capital, which is pandering.

44. #611577
    On February 4th, 2009 at 11:31 am, Southpaw said:

    NY Times Article

    Tell me again why this bloated porker “stimulus” bill needs to give tax breaks to an industry that did very well financially last year?
    Doesn’t matter anyway, the tax breaks for Hollywood were taken out. Even the dimwits in Congress got a clue on that one.

45. #613968
    On February 6th, 2009 at 1:05 pm, Dimsdale said:

    On February 3rd, 2009 at 10:07 pm, Republicanvet said:

    On February 3rd, 2009 at 7:33 pm, bluesoc said:

    It’s a tax break, so technically none of your tax dollars will be going to them.

    Uh, why is it then so many on the left whine when corporations get tax breaks?

    Excellent point! How is “corporate welfare” different from “Hollyweird welfare?”

    Maybe a few of those celebutards should cut their megamillion paychecks if they want to “help” Hollyweird.