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.

Comments

1. #1
   On March 24th, 2009 at 10:50 pm, theloneranger said:

   Dont worry, nothing can save newspapers. Whether they die today or tomorrow, they will die anyway. Thank God.

2. #2
   On March 24th, 2009 at 10:50 pm, Flyoverman said:

   If Congress had acted like this throughout our history we would be subsidizing whale oil.

3. #3
   On March 24th, 2009 at 10:50 pm, teachem2 said:

   Cardin’s Newspaper Revitalization Act would allow newspapers to operate as nonprofits for educational purposes under the U.S. tax code, giving them a similar status to public broadcasting companies.

   Educational purposes? The only thing the local fishwrap of record is good for is … well, fishwrap! So I’m supposed to want to bail them out so I can teach kids how to wrap fish with it? Ummm … ok. Well, I suppose I could teach them how to line bird or other small animal cages with it as well.

4. #4
   On March 24th, 2009 at 10:50 pm, PBoilermaker said:

   Yep, you called this one way back.

5. #5
   On March 24th, 2009 at 10:58 pm, ajmontana said:

   I think their timing is a bad as the print they put out. How does that saying go? strike while the iron is hot? The bailout ship may have left the docks already for the fishwrap boys.
   DLTDHYOTWO

6. #6
   On March 24th, 2009 at 10:59 pm, AlohaGuy said:

   If they print them really small, Sheryl Crow can use her daily newspaper for her second sheet of TP.

7. #7
   On March 24th, 2009 at 11:02 pm, Milwaukee Mike said:

   I am so glad I didn’t buy that bird!

8. #8
   On March 24th, 2009 at 11:05 pm, RThomasETC said:

   I don’t know which scares me more … the MSM selling their soul for advertising revenue or becoming a non-profit with even less accountability for journalistic integrity.

   Why does this proposal send up real alarm bells for me?

   I don’t want Soros to get a write off for donating to the New York Times.

9. #9
   On March 24th, 2009 at 11:05 pm, ErinF said:

   Let. Them. Fail. (Right, Michelle?) There’s a reason the papers don’t sell, but the libs don’t want to face it.

   I wish somebody (like Rush/Levin/Hannity) would come out with a conservative based national newspaper. Not only would it be successful, it would be the final blow to the lib papers to wipe them out of the yellow journalism business.

10. #10
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:10 pm, Stillwaiting said:

    The majority of newspapers already do “educate” as well as PBS does. Nothing liberal can be allowed to die!!! {heavy sigh}

    Talk radio should be nicknamed “Radio Free USA”.

11. #11
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:11 pm, SHoward said:

    This just happens to be one of the themes of Atlas Shrugged. The government made heroic attempts to “save” unprofitable and hopeless business entities, generally based on how ‘friendly’ the business owners were to Washington interests.

    Just sayin’.

12. #12
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:12 pm, d1carter said:

    Well if we bail out these dinosaurs can buggy whips be far behind? Second look at living in Costa Rica.

13. #13
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:13 pm, sharprightturn said:

    Anyone notice that now liberals want to allow newspapers to operate as tax-free/non-profit, while attempting, to invoke a 90% tax on CEO pay?

    You know churches today are fearful sometimes to speak out against homosexuality, as an example, because they may lose their tax-exempt status.

    Anyone here think the newspapers will be anything but further in the liberal tank as non-profits? ie. “Don’t write any unappealing facts about The One for fear of losing our exempt status”, says the non-profit fish wrap from Big City, USA

14. #14
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:14 pm, chapoutier said:

    Let them go non-profit. Its not like they are making any money to be able to pay any taxes in the first place.

15. #15
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:15 pm, docflash said:

    There may be an upside to having a few papers in business.If BHO and his crew take over and control what they want to toilet paper may be on the shortage list.It might be smart to have a stack nearby.At least they would be good for something.

16. #16
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:16 pm, chapoutier said:

    You know churches today are fearful sometimes to speak out against homosexuality, as an example, because they may lose their tax-exempt status.

    If you can name one church that has lost their tax exempt status for speaking out against homosexuality, I will send you a shiny nickel.

17. #17
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:17 pm, zyzzyg said:

    A noble effort, but a bad idea. And, Cardin is my Senator.

    And no, a Rush/Levin/Hannity paper would not work either. Newspapers in general are a dieing breed, besides could you imagine the sports section?

18. #18
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:18 pm, aggiebc said:

    Someone should explain to Congress and newspapers that being unable to turn a profit does not automatically make you a non-profit organization.

19. #19
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:21 pm, ajmontana said:

    Maybe Odopey should make Bidet the Newspaper Czar. lmao

20. #20
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:23 pm, sharprightturn said:

    chapoutier,
    I didn’t say that any churches lost the tax exempt status….I said they are fearful of it. The same way they are reluctant (better word) of speaking out on some moral issues of the day, particularly those that may overlap into the political arena.

    I was making a point that seems to have been lost on you…the threat of losing the status would be no different for the newspapers…spout a view the government doesn’t like and your tax-exempt status goes bye-bye.

    If you haven’t figured that much out, perhaps you should visit a church sometime.

21. #21
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:24 pm, Flyoverman said:

    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:17 pm, zyzzyg said:

    And no, a Rush/Levin/Hannity paper would not work either. Newspapers in general are a dieing breed, besides could you imagine the sports section?

    I’d love a conservative focused sports section.

    Just imagine a sports editorial endorsing a NASCAR rules change requiring that cars race clockwise around the track so that would always steer to the right.

22. #22
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:25 pm, sharprightturn said:

    Oh, Chapotier, keep your shiny nickel…I’m not into handouts.

23. #23
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:28 pm, chapoutier said:

    I was making a point that seems to have been lost on you…the threat of losing the status would be no different for the newspapers…spout a view the government doesn’t like and your tax-exempt status goes bye-bye.

    And all I was asking you was to show that such a legitimate threat exist somewhere other than in paranoid minds.

    If you haven’t figured that much out, perhaps you should visit a church sometime.

    I fear being struck by a lightning bolt or having the roof collapse upon crossing the threshold, or some other such thing.

24. #24
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:29 pm, ArmsnAmmo said:

    What an IDOT! Maybe if the ENDORSEMENT ITEM actually ment anything esp limiting their ability to endorse without comming right and doing like they do anyway. PISSOFF to this worn out, run down and no use not even entirement!!!

25. #25
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:33 pm, txvet2 said:

    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:05 pm, ErinF said:

    Let. Them. Fail. (Right, Michelle?) There’s a reason the papers don’t sell, but the libs don’t want to face it.

    I wish somebody (like Rush/Levin/Hannity) would come out with a conservative based national newspaper.

    The Washington Times, national weekly edition. Or, if you want a daily or are more business/investing inclined, WSJ or Investors Business Daily.

26. #26
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:37 pm, txvet2 said:

    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:29 pm, ArmsnAmmo said:

    What an IDOT! Maybe if the ENDORSEMENT ITEM actually ment anything esp limiting their ability to endorse without comming right and doing like they do anyway. PISSOFF to this worn out, run down and no use not even entirement!!!

    No offense, but could somebody translate this into English????

27. #27
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:41 pm, sharprightturn said:

    Chapoutier,
    Guess I, and 48% of Americans, were paranoid to think if Obama won the election he’d promote a Socialist agenda, or that his policies and rhetoric would be anti-business and anti-defense, or that he’d move us and the world further down into the abortion abyss…..to name a few.

    Naaaahhh…just paranoia on our part.

28. #28
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:53 pm, jdtruly said:

    Maybe we could think up a catchy name for the state owned newspapers: Pravda? TASS? oh, they’ve been used.

29. #29
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:56 pm, sharprightturn said:

    Chapoutier,
    You may want to research the “Johnson Amendment” and the speech-limitation fallout for churches.

    The IRS and liberal groups like the one that Barry Lynn runs DO intimidate churches that don’t tow the politcal line. (Last time I checked homosexuality and same-sex marriage seems to be of interest to many in politics these days, thus political issues)

30. #30
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:59 pm, tamarah180 said:

    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:16 pm, chapoutier said:
    You know churches today are fearful sometimes to speak out against homosexuality, as an example, because they may lose their tax-exempt status.
    If you can name one church that has lost their tax exempt status for speaking out against homosexuality, I will send you a shiny nickel.

    Do Churches Need 501(c)(3) Status?

    Lee Duigon » Bio
    Posted on March 1, 2006

    Must churches obtain official 501(c)(3) status from the Internal Revenue Service to be exempt from taxation?

    No, churches are automatically exempt from taxation, according to attorney Marcus Owens, Washington, D.C., a former head of the IRS’ tax-exempt division, now defending a California church against the IRS (see related story).

    Must churches be 501(c)(3) for their members’ tithes, donations, and gifts to be tax-deductible?

    Again, no, according to Owens and to IRS regulations readily accessible to the public.

    But even if a church chooses not to be recognized as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, Owens said, provisions of the federal tax laws prohibiting “intervention in a political campaign” still apply to all churches. If the IRS finds that a church has violated this prohibition, the activities that constituted the violation are subject to an excise tax, according to the IRS.

    “A church needs no ruling from the IRS to be exempt from taxation,” Owens said. “It is exempt by virtue of being a church. But churches are still bound by provisions of the Internal Revenue Code in regard to intervening in political campaigns.”

    california archives
    November 10, 2008
    Attacks on gays = a tax on Mormons
    I don’t know about you, but I am incensed about the LDS Church’s over-the-pulpit exhortation of its members to mobilize and help pass California’s Proposition 8, banning gay marriage. When I first heard about it, in fact, my first reaction was, “Damn, they need to have their tax-exempt status revoked.”

    Now you can help urge the IRS to make that happen. Here are all the instructions and supporting documents you need in order to:

    <File a Complaint Asking the IRS to Revoke the LDS Church’s Tax-Exempt Status

    If the Church is going to jump into the political arena (yes, okay, they’ve never not been a player in the political arena) and try to legislate a segment of our population out of their legal rights, then it’s only fair that they as a corporation should share this country’s tax burden. They pulled this same kind of nonsense 30 years ago to help defeat the Equal Rights Amendment,* and who knows what they’ll try next if their actions are left legally unchallenged?

    I will never understand the idea that extended marriage rights to same-sex couples somehow threatens the institution of marriage. “Defense of marriage” makes no more sense than, say, “defense of Sunday,” the idea that your belief in the sanctity of your Sabbath should mean the I can’t buy a beer that day. In a pluralistic society, that’s just a ridiculous, backward, and fearful proposition. Observe your Sabbath the way you see fit, and feel free to restrict the definition of a sanctified marriage inside the walls of your own church. But don’t try to extend that limited thinking into the public sphere—at least, not without seeing your organization transformed into a de facto political action committee.

    Mormons at large seem unable to equate their anti-gay activism (and let’s be honest, the Church can equivocate all it wants, but in pushing this legislation against gay marriage, it is supporting discrimination against gays) with the anti-Mormon persecution they suffered throughout much of their early history. Mormons only wanted to be able to practice their odd little religion and their uncommon marital practices in peace, but state after state ran them out with torches and guns. (Okay, again it was more complicated than that, and had more than a little to do with the early political goals of the Church and how threatening those sounded to their neighbors, but let’s take it as a given for the sake of this discussion that the persecution was entirely unprovoked.) If anyone in the world should be more sympathetic to the goal of earning society’s approval for an unconventional brand of marriage, it should be the Mormons. I mean, come on. They are the sorest losers I’ve ever seen.

31. #31
    On March 25th, 2009 at 12:02 am, tamarah180 said:

    Chap:

    Please keep the nickle. You will need it when Obama gets done taxing the snot out of all of us.

    I’s jist sayin’….

    *tam is now goin’ tah sweep the roaches outta mah trailer*

32. #32
    On March 25th, 2009 at 12:07 am, sharprightturn said:

    Good references Tamarah….

    I would even add that ANY political speech banned by the IRS is unconstitutional. Yes, I know it has been in place for some time, but churches, businesses, schools, I don’t care who they are should be able to speak freely on the issues that matter to them.

33. #33
    On March 25th, 2009 at 12:13 am, Speakup said:

    Since we own 80% of AIG do they qualify for nonprofit?

    Maybe that’s one way to get a tax holiday.

34. #34
    On March 25th, 2009 at 12:17 am, BlameAmericaLast said:

    Why not just do what Hugo Chavez does? He owns the newspapers, TV, etc.

    Oh, that’s right. The MSM is already OWNED by Obama.

35. #35
    On March 25th, 2009 at 12:30 am, fulldroolcup said:

    I was making a point that seems to have been lost on you…the threat of losing the status would be no different for the newspapers…spout a view the government doesn’t like and your tax-exempt status goes bye-bye.

    To which chap responded:
    

    And all I was asking you was to show that such a legitimate threat exist somewhere other than in paranoid minds.

    Snort!!! I guess you’ve forgotten Ted Kennedy’s attempt to draft a bill of attainder against Rupert Murdoch when he sought to buy the Boston Herald. Or the Senate Dems’ attempts to muzzle Limbaugh just a year ago.

    I guess you’ve forgotten all the many OTHER industries and individuals government thugs have threatened with loss of contracts, ending tax-exempt status, or IRS audits.

    It’s easy to imagine “Little Caesar” Pelosi responding to an unfavorable editorial at some “educational” paper by sneering:

    “Nice little non-profit you got here. I would hate to see anything happen to it.”

    Just what color ARE the (conveniently myopic and distorting) rose-colored glasses on your world?

36. #36
    On March 25th, 2009 at 12:38 am, Marc said:

    The NY Times has an oped page filled with antiIsrael self-righteous smug braggarts such as Roger Cohen, Nicholas Kristof, Stanley Fish, Maureen Dowd and the whole Sulzberger clan. Is it any wonder nobody reads this tripe? It is the same blame Israel editorial page day after day. I won’t even wrap fish with the Times.

37. #37
    On March 25th, 2009 at 1:16 am, RetFireman said:

    Tax Cuts – As Explained By A Democrat

    If you don’t understand the Democrats’ version of tax cuts (and you are not alone), maybe this will help explain it:

    50,000 people go to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund was then due.

    The team was about to mail refunds when the Congressional Democrats stopped them and suggested that they send out refund amounts based on the Democrat National Committee’s interpretation of fairness.

    After all, if the refunds were made based on the price each person paid for the tickets, most of the money would go to the ticket holders of the most expensive tickets. That would be unfair and unconscionable.

    People in the $10 seats will get back $15, because they have less money to spend. Call it an “Earned Income Ticket Credit.” Persons “earn” it by demonstrating little ambition, few skills and poor work habits, thus keeping them at entry-level wages.

    People in the $25 seats will get back $25, because that’s only fair.

    People in the $50 seats will get back $1, because they already make a lot of money and don’t need a refund. After all, if they can afford a $50 ticket, then they must not be paying enough taxes.

    People in the $75 luxury seats will have to pay another $50, because they have way too much to spend.

    The people driving (or walking) by the stadium who couldn’t afford to watch the game will get $10 each, even though they didn’t pay anything in, because they need the most help (sometimes known as Affirmative Action!).

    Now do you understand?

    If not, contact Representative Nancy Pelosi, Senator Harry Reid or President B. Hussein Obama for assistance.

38. #38
    On March 25th, 2009 at 1:19 am, happy2behere said:

    So then the newspapers of tomorrow will be the print version of NPR? If we buy/subscribe will our contributions be considered a donation and thus deductible from our taxes?

    On another note: Someone here doesnt think the LGBT lobby would like to get the LDS church’s tax exempt status revoked in revenge for Prop. 8? Really?

39. #39
    On March 25th, 2009 at 1:22 am, Bogtrotter said:

    Bailing out newspapers would be unfair. The buggy whip makers have been waiting FAR longer.

40. #40
    On March 25th, 2009 at 1:41 am, Joy said:

    Yep, Michelle called it…

    That’s all we need is government owned media. That’s just a great idea!

41. #41
    On March 25th, 2009 at 1:57 am, WarTip said:

    Herr Goebbels would be so proud.

    As for the LGBT stuff, they are not seeking the “same” rights as everybody else since they already have the same rights as everybody else. They are seeking “special” rights. Once we begin granting people special rights, where does it stop? Again, that would depend on the socio-political climate at the time and is exactly why it must be avoided. It has absolutely nothing to do with what may or may not be a personal choice but with societal standards.

    Bailing out the newspapers? Why do we need to support this propaganda machine with my money? If I wanted their danged paper I would buy it. I do not so I don’t and that should be enough. Let the market take charge of the market. That government which governs best is that which governs least.

42. #42
    On March 25th, 2009 at 2:03 am, California Red said:

    Is granting non-taxable status really a bailout when there are no profits to tax in the first place? Would this really change the newspaper business’ economic reality to any significant degree so that they could continue to operate. I thought I heard one of the large papers is loosing $1M a day.

    It is obvious to me that the internet has changed the way news and journalism function. Printing on dead trees is so yesterday that I dont even think of it as news. Add to that the partisan yellow journmalism and you have a product that is not surviving in the market.

43. #43
    On March 25th, 2009 at 2:09 am, RetFireman said:

    All I care about is that “Get Fuzzy” remains safe. If anything happens to Bucky…well, I could not be held responsible for my actions.

    I stopped receiving the local fishwrap about two years ago. The only reason I was receiving it for the longest time was for the comics and theatre section. After they became outright blatant about their Liberal sway and began an open vendetta against my department, I just plain stopped delivery altogether.

    They refuse to allow any Conservative letters to get through in the “Letters to the Editor” section and any story dealing with the economy, war or politics in general all had an anti-Conservative/Republican/Bush slant to them to the point that they became unreadable. But the last straw came when they began attacking the Fire and Police departments. They were having an open war against the very things that kept the population safe, and was backing the uber-Liberal mayor in everything she did. Even Unions began to boycott it.

    I miss being able to read “Get Fuzzy” in the mornings, but I have been just fine without the paper. Yes, I can read them on-line, but it just isn’t the same.

    Let the papers die. If you cannot present the news in an unbiased fashion, you do not deserve to be in business in the first place.

44. #44
    On March 25th, 2009 at 2:30 am, tanksoldier said:

    Actually, I think a prohibition on news organizations endorsing candidates is a GOOD idea.

    They are supposed to report the news objectively, not tell us what to think about it.

45. #45
    On March 25th, 2009 at 2:34 am, leepro said:

    Geez!

    This has happened before…
    I sent Michelle a TIP email about this story at 2:38pm (CDT)

    …and no HAT TIP.

    

46. #46
    On March 25th, 2009 at 2:49 am, Freddy said:

    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:16 pm, chapoutier said:

    You know churches today are fearful sometimes to speak out against homosexuality, as an example, because they may lose their tax-exempt status.

    If you can name one church that has lost their tax exempt status for speaking out against homosexuality, I will send you a shiny nickel.

    Actually, there is a group in California trying to have the tax exempt status of the Mormon church revoked for their contributions against Prop 8. The case is pending.

47. #47
    On March 25th, 2009 at 3:08 am, atheling said:

    Is this constitutional?

    I thought we had a (snort) “free press”. Prohibiting their endorsement might be a violation of such.

48. #48
    On March 25th, 2009 at 3:08 am, atheling said:

    Sounds like a lot of nickels will be in the mail.

49. #49
    On March 25th, 2009 at 3:25 am, RetFireman said:

    On March 25th, 2009 at 3:08 am, atheling said:

    Is this constitutional?

    I thought we had a (snort) “free press”. Prohibiting their endorsement might be a violation of such.

    You know, now that you mention it…

    If the Government…namely the OBAMA/Democrat run Government…bails out the NYT or any other news organization, regardless of if it is print or any other method, can we ever trust them again in any reporting done on the Government…ESPECIALLY when it would have to do with Obama or the Democrats?

    Would that not make said bailed out organization beholden to the Dems and Obama?

    Can anyone say that they would believe 100% that the NYT would ever say anything against the Obama Admin. or the Dems or report on anything that would make them look bad or show them in a bad light?

    Now, I know…it isn’t like they aren’t the Dems and Obama’s biggest cheerleaders as it is…but wouldn’t bailing them out remove any and all doubt completely?

    I’m sorry folks, but if the Obama Admin bails them out, I could never consider them to be ethical/honest in their reporting ever again. This would be the biggest conflict of interest as far as the news reporting profession is concerned, and should not be done, let alone even asked for.

50. #50
    On March 25th, 2009 at 3:53 am, cnredd said:

    Didn’t Senator Cardin’s great-great grandfather propose the Horse-and-Carriage Revitalization Act?

    cnredd
    Political Wrinkles
    http://www.politicalwrnkles.com

51. #51
    On March 25th, 2009 at 5:33 am, GaMidnightRider said:

    Bailout, Bailouts… everyone wants WE THE PEOPLE to pay for them ignorance. When is someone in D.C. going to pay WE THE PEOPLE for their ignorance and incompetence. STOP ALL THE BAILOUTS NO MAORE FOR ANYONE !!!!!!

52. #52
    On March 25th, 2009 at 7:20 am, Snowmonster said:

    It is funny that tax cuts are ok when applied to liberal institutions.

53. #53
    On March 25th, 2009 at 7:38 am, scituate_tgr said:

    RetFireman said: This would be the biggest conflict of interest as far as the news reporting profession is concerned, and should not be done, let alone even asked for.

    48% of the population will agree with you.

54. #54
    On March 25th, 2009 at 7:43 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    I felt it coming up my esophagus – I almost PUKED when I heard Cardon quoting Thomas Jefferson to defend yet another moronic ‘argument’ for goverment intervention.

    Hey! Let’s revitalize BUGGY WHIP MANUFACTURING! It will stimulate JOBS! It will bring back an American TRADITION! Oh yeah & IT’S …. GREEN!!!

55. #55
    On March 25th, 2009 at 7:51 am, chapoutier said:

    Sounds like a lot of nickels will be in the mail.

    Hardly. So far I have been pointed to one article stating that if churches get involved in political campaigns, thier 501c3 status can be revoked. This is absolutely true of any tax exempt entity and has always been the case. And another article that some angry people want to start a petition against the LDS church for their campaign against Prop 8. Whoop-de-freaking-doo. A petition, wow. We all know how useful they are.

    What I have not seen is one actual instance of a church losing its exempt status because of its objection to homosexuality, nor any actual threat of such.

    So the shiny nickel will rightfully stay in my pocket.

56. #56
    On March 25th, 2009 at 7:56 am, ajmontana said:

    5 cent’s is Chaps hourly rate.
    Like Lucy in Peanuts.

57. #57
    On March 25th, 2009 at 7:57 am, Socky said:

    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:41 pm, sharprightturn said:

    Chapoutier,
    Guess I, and 48% of Americans, were paranoid to think if Obama won the election he’d promote a Socialist agenda, or that his policies and rhetoric would be anti-business and anti-defense, or that he’d move us and the world further down into the abortion abyss…..to name a few.

    Yeah, just like we’re “paranoid” about the doubling of the national debt and the inflationary impact of devaluing the dollar.

58. #58
    On March 25th, 2009 at 8:00 am, Ron said:

    Gee, would they let me deduct my newspaper subscription on my taxes? Sort of like a donation to charity? Are these people serious? Great, idea, Mr. Democrat. Let’s preserve the independence of the newspapers and other media of this country by making them non-profit (Hopey-Changey says share the wealth) and giving them government protection. Certainly no pressure there, now, is there? Feel free to bite the hand that feed you, but at least you could continue to “report” the news, all that we see fit. Just don’t “endorse” a candidate — like that would be hard after this last abortion of an election cycle!

59. #59
    On March 25th, 2009 at 8:18 am, bradley said:

    So, the government will force me to pay for newspapers I won’t buy or read? Excellent.

    This “free market” thing WAS getting out of hand, good thing Obama has it under control. Or will, soon. All bow to the Leader.

60. #60
    On March 25th, 2009 at 8:29 am, Mach1Duck said:

    The government has no legal right to bailout any failed business. If a business is failing, it is because it is mismanaged, or its product is no longer in demand by the consumer. Bailing the News Media allows government control of the press. Welcome to the USSR.

61. #61
    On March 25th, 2009 at 8:31 am, Fineous Reese said:

    not a tax exempt situation but I don’t need Chap’s shiny nickel anyway.

    search on Canadian pastor Mark Harding

    as for the topic at hand, Cardin is one of my Senators too. When this was on the radio this morning it had me pondering how long before the Senators and their ilk are helping write the news instead of just fund it.

    let the papers die, I have my book of “Get Fuzzy” strips

62. #62
    On March 25th, 2009 at 8:42 am, NJ-Aviator said:

    chapoutier said:

    Let them go non-profit. Its not like they are making any money to be able to pay any taxes in the first place.

    They don’t deserve tax exempt status. There’s not a single rational reason for giving them tax exempt status. Not one. They deserve to pay taxes like every other business.

63. #63
    On March 25th, 2009 at 8:59 am, jangar said:

    Stillwaiting said:

    Talk radio should be nicknamed “Radio Free USA”.

    Bingo!

64. #64
    On March 25th, 2009 at 9:02 am, NJ-Aviator said:

    This Dem majority in Congress is dangerous. This country is in serious trouble. And it’s not because of the economy.

65. #65
    On March 25th, 2009 at 9:04 am, guitarplayer said:

    Newspapers need to adapt to changing technology. They need to cut paper formats and start moving to electronic.

    Besides, aren’t don’t most newspapers have their editorial pages crying and fussing about the myth that is global warming? I’d thinking switching to a media that doesn’t kill the trees that cleanse the air of CO2 would be welcomed by them.

66. #66
    On March 25th, 2009 at 9:08 am, torabora said:

    Now when they bash Bushmcchimpyhitlerhaliburton budgets it will be a public service announcement rather than a vicious political hit job for duh1.

67. #67
    On March 25th, 2009 at 9:10 am, sonofdy said:

    You called it MM.

68. #68
    On March 25th, 2009 at 9:11 am, sonofdy said:

    This is absolutely true of any tax exempt entity and has always been the case.

    You are kidding right??

    You can’t believe this.

69. #69
    On March 25th, 2009 at 9:15 am, swede said:

    a Democratic senator on Tuesday introduced a bill to help them by allowing newspaper companies to restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks.

    Eliminate deductions for charitable giving, and establish them for…tree killing, dying daily rags that no one wants to read. Keep the change.

70. #70
    On March 25th, 2009 at 9:16 am, conservativesRus said:

    The Hartford Courant just had a layoff. They let go a bunch of “reporters” but kept almost all of those who editorialize.
    On Sunday, there is no news on the front page – instead they deliver some social agenda item or glowing piece about how Senator Dodd only got those mortgages so he could support the Connecticut economy. (How very thoughtful of him). To get to news, you generally have to get to page 15 or so. Even the sports section is more opinion than fact. Further, I’d think the people writing for a living would be somewhat skilled in the use of words. Invariably, the writing is so poor that in some paragraphs, the meaning is completely indecipherable.
    Basic rule of capitalism (BAD) is that poor product not meeting a need leads to poor sales.

71. #71
    On March 25th, 2009 at 9:21 am, Misscheryl said:

    Reason 9 Trillion to form a grass roots revolt.

72. #72
    On March 25th, 2009 at 9:25 am, conservativesRus said:

    Keep our eyes on the ball people. This may not be about newspapers at all. It might be about keeping some tax lawers very busy.
    If a company buys ad space in a “non-profit” newspaper, what portion is tax deductible? No longer would it just be a “normal business expense”.
    Then there is the whole matter of perception. When a company buys ad space in a “for profit” distribution mechanism, there is little or no presumption of agreement or endorsement with any particular agenda. Once the newspaper becomes non-profit, I anticipate these perceptions may change.

73. #73
    On March 25th, 2009 at 9:31 am, chapoutier said:

    You are kidding right??

    You can’t believe this.

    What do you mean? 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely proscribed from participating in political campaigns (i.e., candidates). Note this is not the same as being able to lobby (i.e. issues) which is permitted up to a point. Many on both sides walk a very fine line, admittedly, between the two.

74. #74
    On March 25th, 2009 at 9:34 am, chapoutier said:

    If a company buys ad space in a “non-profit” newspaper, what portion is tax deductible?

    None. If you get something of value from the non-profit, it is not a contribution. It would be like saying that someone that buys a pair of jeans at the Salvation Army could deduct what she paid for them.

    There would be some tricky tax issues, to be sure, but this is not one of them.

75. #75
    On March 25th, 2009 at 9:34 am, swede said:

    On March 25th, 2009 at 9:25 am, conservativesRus said:

    Agreed, but there is another ball. Just guessing 80-90% of these rags are Dear Leader water carriers. Keeping sinking MSM ships afloat keeps his agenda up front.

76. #76
    On March 25th, 2009 at 9:41 am, wighttrasch said:

    But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.

    Well, there goes their status, then.

77. #77
    On March 25th, 2009 at 9:52 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    Does the The Fishwrap Rescue and Recovery Act of 2009 include Human Events, a Conservative Weekly that could sure use our help and an excellent read.

    While 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely proscribed from participating in political campaigns they do it anyway and continuously. From Churches to Tree Huggers to Community Out Reach groups we see it. One in a hundred may support a Republican and the IRS sends them a nasty letter. The other 99 support a Democrat and we hear nothing.

    Neither the Federal Election Commission nor the IRS is particularity known for integrity.

78. #78
    On March 25th, 2009 at 9:53 am, Savage24 said:

    Give the newspapers a tax break and make them as apolitical as public broadcasting companies! My , my do they think we fell off the pumpkin truck this morning? Time to throw them all out of office.

79. #79
    On March 25th, 2009 at 10:02 am, lgm said:

    Misleading (lying?). The reason the NYTimes is hurting financially is that they cannot force people who read their content to pay for it. It’s on the web for free. Nobody is forced to read the NYTimes, but most of those who do read it do not pay for it. If everyone who reads the NYTimes had to pay, the Times would be doing fine.

80. #80
    On March 25th, 2009 at 10:07 am, conservativesRus said:

    On March 25th, 2009 at 9:34 am, chapoutier said: None. If you get something of value from the non-profit, it is not a contribution

    Chap – I’m well aware of how it SHOULD be. I’m also well aware of tax accountants, tax attorneys, sales people, IRS agents and politicians at all levels.
    My general observation of human behavior indicates that this proposed change will present all sorts of opportunities.

81. #81
    On March 25th, 2009 at 10:09 am, prendad said:

    The NYT?
    Good riddance. My parakeet won’t even allow it in his cage.

82. #82
    On March 25th, 2009 at 10:10 am, plymouthacclaim said:

    lgm said:

    If everyone who reads the NYTimes had to pay, the Times would be doing fine no one would read the Times.

    Fixed it

83. #83
    On March 25th, 2009 at 10:13 am, conservativesRus said:

    On March 25th, 2009 at 10:02 am, lgm said:

    lgm – do you have any idea how a newpaper makes money? I’ll give you a hint: It is NOT from subscription rates.
    And while you are contemplating that – I might suggest you consider in the days before cable, how ABC, CBS, NBC broadcast their signal all over the country and everybody watched “for free”. (Actually “the days before cable” wasn’t really a necessary qualifier but included to simplify as much as possible.)

84. #84
    On March 25th, 2009 at 10:14 am, DBNinKY said:

    Excuse me?! The NYT only began offering their “content” for free a short time ago (~ a year or so?), when circulation dropped off the charts.

    PS – Don’t tell Karl, but you’re beginning to slip a little.

85. #85
    On March 25th, 2009 at 10:15 am, swede said:

    So, did they gave tax breaks and bailouts to carriage makers when the auto came along? Nope. Businesses started manufacturing auto components, or failed. Radio broadcasters updated their media to TV, or failed.

    If people want newspapers, they’ll buy them, and advertisers will buy space. If not, they need to update the medium or say bye bye. Just saying.

86. #86
    On March 25th, 2009 at 10:16 am, chapoutier said:

    Chap – I’m well aware of how it SHOULD be. I’m also well aware of tax accountants, tax attorneys, sales people, IRS agents and politicians at all levels.

    No. There is zero ambiguity here. They culd deduct it as a business expense (I assume, not sure what the rules are for advertising). It would not be a charitable deduction. Why would businesses, tax lawyers or accountants waste their time trying to get it to fall under a spurious argument for deduction when there is a perfectly obvious law that gets you to exactly the same place?

87. #87
    On March 25th, 2009 at 10:16 am, Yashmak said:

    The reason the NYTimes is hurting financially is that they cannot force people who read their content to pay for it. It’s on the web for free. Nobody is forced to read the NYTimes, but most of those who do read it do not pay for it. If everyone who reads the NYTimes had to pay, the Times would be doing fine.

    – lgm

    They put that content on the web, like all the other news companies. Their choice. All the more reason the government shouldn’t be wasting our taxpayer money trying to save them.

88. #88
    On March 25th, 2009 at 10:24 am, DBNinKY said:

    If everyone who reads the NYTimes had to pay, the Times would be doing fine.

    #84 is for LGM – hit submit too soon.

    Continued: Paying for NYT online content didn’t make a dent in saving their bottom line, and may have hastened the demise of their company by sending student researchers elsewhere for sources (USA Today, WaPo, WSJ, etc.).

    The result? the NYT is first having to sell off assets, like entire sections of their newly constructed building, before liquidating the paper/brand itself.

89. #89
    On March 25th, 2009 at 10:25 am, Veretax said:

    Just one question.

    If the newspapers do go non-profit. Will they be held to the same standards as others? By that I mean, will they no longer be allowed to overtly endorse candidacies? Seems to me there is an edge to this proposal noone is considering.

90. #90
    On March 25th, 2009 at 10:28 am, chapoutier said:

    If the newspapers do go non-profit. Will they be held to the same standards as others? By that I mean, will they no longer be allowed to overtly endorse candidacies? Seems to me there is an edge to this proposal noone is considering.

    Yes they are. From above:

    Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.

91. #91
    On March 25th, 2009 at 10:30 am, swede said:

    If everyone who reads the NYTimes had to pay, the Times would be doing fine.

    Non sequitur. If they had to pay they wouldn’t read it. Nothing magic, simple supply and demand. NYT offers a product no one wants to pay for. Next.

92. #92
    On March 25th, 2009 at 10:30 am, DBNinKY said:

    My general observation of human behavior indicates that this proposed change will present all sorts of opportunities.

    After what I read about Obama’s tax plans for charitable giving (as he is reported to have stated them last night), I doubt there’ll be many non/not-for-profits left to worry with in the near future.

93. #93
    On March 25th, 2009 at 10:32 am, gunslingerpatriot said:

    Retfireman-
    This comic link is just for you, so enjoy your “It’s Bucky Time!”

    Now pardon me as I have to produce a research paper for my sociology class.

    GSP
    “This is Sparta!”

94. #94
    On March 25th, 2009 at 10:43 am, misterbee241 said:

    Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.

    So they’ll be less biased than they are now?
    So newspapers will become the official propaganda arm of the liberal democrats as opposed to being the unoffical propaganda wing they are now. So the government will be giving them permission on what to write and when. So much for 1st amendment freedom of the press.
    I canceled my local newspaper subscription back in November and I was never even asked why. They keep trying to get me back by leaving the rag in my paper box, but it just goes into the recycle bin unread.

95. #95
    On March 25th, 2009 at 10:45 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    chapoutier said:

    Let them go non-profit. Its not like they are making any money to be able to pay any taxes in the first place.

    Wouldn’t they essentially become a stealth 527 with a printing press reporting on political ~news~ like cpusa.

    No matter how you look at it you cannot deny that affording them ANY sort of government protections, ESPECIALLY those that require the government to ~determine~ what activities they may or may not engage in, is… TOTALLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE 1ST AMENDMENT.

    (Is somebody out there making a list of all the CRAP that has to be quickly repealed when conservatives take over Congress and the White House?)

96. #96
    On March 25th, 2009 at 10:45 am, misterbee241 said:

    On March 24th, 2009 at 10:50 pm, theloneranger said:

    Dont worry, nothing can save newspapers. Whether they die today or tomorrow, they will die anyway. Thank God.

    But not before a lot of taxpayer money is thrown into that sink hole.

97. #97
    On March 25th, 2009 at 11:05 am, misterbee241 said:

    On March 25th, 2009 at 3:08 am, atheling said:

    Is this constitutional?

    Gold Hat: Badges Constitution? We ain’t got no badges Constitution. We don’t need no badges Constitution. I don’t have to show you any stinking badges Constitution.
    With apologies to Alfonso Bedoya.

98. #98
    On March 25th, 2009 at 11:12 am, Salt said:

    On March 25th, 2009 at 10:02 am, lgm said:

    Misleading (lying?). The reason the NYTimes is hurting financially …

    Hmmm… this reminds me of the time last week when lgm defined Ad Hominem and then proceeded to claim the individual to which he was responding was on LSD in a lame joke.

    I notice a similarity here.

    lgm, you really don’t need to preface your comments with what you’re about to do. We get it.

99. #99
    On March 25th, 2009 at 12:03 pm, battleaxe said:

    Newspapers are already demanding welfare…from Google

    http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=135433

100. #100
     On March 25th, 2009 at 2:22 pm, California Red said:

     This is all about making Soros’ contributions to the liberal rags tax deductible. “Ultrarich” patrons will throw their money at the newspapers instead of giving to the Government.