Stimulus Bill labels $246 million for Hollywood wasteful (I AGREE!)

[Paul James Savarese]

What is it with your attitude? If you can't be polite to other people involved in a conversation, then go elsewhere.

 

I don't see how thanking someone for explaining something is being impolite.

[Ira Ratner]

This is just a tax break on the purchase of film, and while it SOUNDS like a lot of money, it sure isn't. It's nothing:

 

You have to put talent salaries aside, because that has nothing to do with it.

 

The motion picture industry IS an important industry in this country responsible for, dare I say, MILLIONS of jobs? When you really do the math on EVERYTHING that U.S. film production touches--both in production expenditures and worldwide distribution--it is vital.

 

As a matter of fact, it's one of the FEW industries where the U.S. totally kicks ass--hardly ANYONE else comes close. And when they do, it's still minute compared to the U.S. film industry. And don't male me laugh by mentioning India.

 

This is a totally understandable break for the industry, which will reap its expenditure many times over in job creation.

 

Especially job creation for the CRAPPY films, which is where 99.9% of working professionals make their living in the first place.

Edited February 5, 2009 by Ira Ratner

[Stuart Brereton]

I don't see how thanking someone for explaining something is being impolite.

 

Perhaps I misinterpreted your tone. If that's the case, then I apologize.

[Ira Ratner]

Also, Obama has to get this thing passed with Republican support--and if there's one thing Republicans will always support, it's tax breaks for businesses.

 

Sorry--I couldn't control myself there.

[Paul James Savarese]

Wow...I've read through some of my posts and I see that I have been incredibly emotional and nasty. I apologize to everyone and shouldn't talk politics at all. Sorry guys, tough times are getting the best of me and I'm forgetting what's important.

[Walter Graff]

Wow...I've read through some of my posts and I see that I have been incredibly emotional and nasty. I apologize to everyone and shouldn't talk politics at all. Sorry guys, tough times are getting the best of me and I'm forgetting what's important.

 

It's okay. Obama will fix everything! :(

[Tim Carroll]

• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers "to buy motion picture film".

 

As others have mentioned, this is not a tax break for Hollywood, it is a tax break for Kodak. Actually more of a stimulus for Kodak, an attempt to get Hollywood to purchase more motion picture film, ergo keeping Kodak afloat. It was put into the bill back when the bill had the "buy American" clause in it, so it was obviously an attempt to boost Kodak, who is struggling mightily in their film division and I'm sure the recession isn't doing them any good either.

 

Best,

-Tim

[Walter Graff]

As others have mentioned, this is not a tax break for Hollywood, it is a tax break for Kodak. Actually more of a stimulus for Kodak, an attempt to get Hollywood to purchase more motion picture film, ergo keeping Kodak afloat. It was put into the bill back when the bill had the "buy American" clause in it, so it was obviously an attempt to boost Kodak, who is struggling mightily in their film division and I'm sure the recession isn't doing them any good either.

 

Best,

-Tim

 

The only misnomer her is that Kodak's major stake as a business is as a motion picture film company. Yet one look at their numbers show that motion picture film is a rather small percentage of Kodak's overall business. They slowly made a switch some time ago into the digital world. In fact most of what Kodak does these days is involved with digital, not film. Last year their digital division was nearly $5 billion of their total income. Their entire film division (consumer and proffesional) was $1.9bil. And all other division's were an additional $3.5bil. So while Kodak's certainly is the name in film, their total income from film was $2bil while the rest of the company earned nearly $9bil so as you can see, a couple hundred million was not going to do much in the area of film for them. Certainly not going to reverse the 4000 people they layed off last time around. But then again many of those layoffs had nothing to do with motion picture film. Kodak needs to do a lot of company wide trimming as it's lost some of it's center trying to get it's hands in too many things at once.

[David Rakoczy]

The almost entire Trillion is wasteful and goes against our Constitution and Free Market Economics...

 

Socialism here we come.... are !!!!! :o

[Scott Fritzshall]

The almost entire Trillion is wasteful and goes against our Constitution and Free Market Economics...

 

Socialism here we come.... are !!!!! :o

I'm sincerely really happy about that!

[David Rakoczy]

Socialism has never... ever... worked..

 

Your joy will be short lived and your children will shake their heads in wonderment as to why you stepped away from what has made this country great. If you want Socialism... move... you are in the wrong country!

[David Rakoczy]

Actually more of a stimulus for Kodak, an attempt to get Hollywood to purchase more motion picture film, ergo keeping Kodak afloat. It was put into the bill back when the bill had the "buy American" clause in it, so it was obviously an attempt to boost Kodak, .

 

Best,

-Tim

 

Well this must have happened overnight.. because as of last night there was no 'Buy American" clause.. and think about it.. if we want to 'stimulate' the American Economy.. why shouldn't any funds be spent in America.. after alll.. it is OUR money.. the Govn't has NO resources of it's own.. they steal our money and do what they think is best.. because they know better than us.. boy, how lucky we are!

[Scott Fritzshall]

Socialism has never... ever... worked..

lol

 

Your joy will be short lived and your children will shake their heads in wonderment as to why you stepped away from what has made this country great. If you want Socialism... move... you are in the wrong country!

We already have plenty of socialism. Our police, fire department, mail delivery, national defense, transportation infrastructure, water, food and drug safety, etc., are all socialized. I would gladly give a massive chunk of my earnings to implement socialized healthcare here (though in reality it would most likely end up being less than what I already pay for individual coverage), and would love to live in a country that already has successfully implemented UHC (ie, literally every single other first-world country).

 

Regardless, this stimulus bill is hardly the beginning of any sort of a command economy; it's using our collective resources to invest in our collective future by funding projects that are not only desperately needed [such as rebuilding our horrifically neglected infrastructure], but will create or preserve tons of jobs in the process, which means that people have money to spend on things such as entertainment, which means that you and I get to keep our jobs.

[Walter Graff]

I care less about politics but as a studier of American History I know that no attempt by the government to help out a bad economy has ever worked. Neither will this. Stimulation comes from the private sector. Specifically, no president has ever been able to help the economy, it's just not part of his job description. Yet another waste of money masked as the thing that will make things better for America. Just doesn't work like that. Never did. Never will. It's the private sector that does. Watch Wall Street for much better indication of when we are recovering. And non partisan groups have said every job this bill creates will cost the American taxpayer between $100k and $300k per person hired. It was passed tonight as a compromise so let's write the check and wait for our taxes to increase.

[Scott Fritzshall]

I care less about politics but as a studier of American History I know that no attempt by the government to help out a bad economy has ever worked.

The New Deal worked pretty well... oh wait, I forgot, it's "socialism," therefore it didn't work at all...

 

Yet another waste of money masked as the thing that will make things better for America.

Except that a ton of the provisions actually will make things better, such as redeveloping infrastructure and investing in new energy technologies.

Just doesn't work like that. Never did. Never will. It's the private sector that does. Watch Wall Street for much better indication of when we are recovering.

I guess we'll just recover magically? This is a deep, deep hole that we're plummeting into, and there are several more to come, basically as a direct result of letting the market do whatever it wants with little regulation.

And non partisan groups have said every job this bill creates will cost the American taxpayer between $100k and $300k per person hired.

I'd like to see those articles because I haven't seen anything of the sort.

[Walter Graff]

The New Deal worked pretty well... oh wait, I forgot, it's "socialism," therefore it didn't work at all...

 

Guess you never studied history, unemployment stayed in the double digits with the new deal and the country a shambles till WWII fixed the economy. his new deal did nothing for the economy. Built lots of roads, but not much more. If you'd like the history and the numbers, I'll send it to you. As i said I care less about politics, socialism, etc.

 

What I consider a fair assessment:

 

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/New_Deal_success.htm

 

oh and...

 

"President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing. A preliminary analysis by the Congressional Budget Office shows that the jobs created by the economic stimulus legislation being debated in the Senate would cost taxpayers between $100,000 and $300,000 a piece."

 

http://www.cbo.gov/

[Brad Grimmett]

I enjoy talking politics just as much as the next guy, but this is not the place to do it. I'm sure there are hundreds, if not thousands, of websites that are designed for exactly that purpose. Please go there with any further political talk that doesn't relate to cinematography or the film business in some way.

[David Rakoczy]

"I'm sincerely really happy about that!".... huh?

 

The reason the motion picture industry does so well is because of fierce competition. There are many many studios, production companies and producers both union and independent working (competing) to create an array of product(s). For the most part, we have a lot of choices to choose from. This is the heart of Free Economics. This is what has made the USA so great in such a short period of time. Now, I have never heard someone complain about the quality of choices of shoes, breakfast cereal, music, clothing etc. etc... they have to choose from. Why? Because there is fierce competition and lots of choices. Competition always creates a better 'quality' of choices for the consumer. Now imagine if the government took over the motion picture industry. Dictated the kinds of movies that were to be produced... and for whom. Limited the amount a picture could make or worse pooled all the money so the failing pictures were compensated from the successful ones (i.e. stole from the successful producers and gave that money to the producers who failed) . Do you think you would be happy with your choices? Do you think you would see a better product created? Do you think real 'producers' would 'risk' as much knowing they would not reap all the rewards of their undertaking? The two most prominent areas americans complain about are healthcare and education.... Why? Lack of fierce competition that drives 'quality'. What you are proposing in cheering on Socialism will only lessen the quality of the choices you have and drive quality and productivity to an all time low. Unfortunately, more and more believe the government can do a better and a more efficient job (at everything) than the private sector... than themselves... that the government knows how to spend and invest (your) money better than (you) do. You said you would be "happy to give a big chunk of your income for socialized medicine".... then take someone who is ill and in need of help to the doctor tomorrow and pick up the bill... then take them to a movie... that is the American Way.

[Scott Fritzshall]

The reason the motion picture industry does so well is because of fierce competition. There are many many studios, production companies and producers both union and independent working (competing) to create an array of product(s). For the most part, we have a lot of choices to choose from. This is the heart of Free Economics. This is what has made the USA so great in such a short period of time. Now, I have never heard someone complain about the quality of choices of shoes, breakfast cereal, music, clothing etc. etc... they have to choose from. Why? Because there is fierce competition and lots of choices. Competition always creates a better 'quality' of choices for the consumer. Now imagine if the government took over the motion picture industry. Dictated the kinds of movies that were to be produced... and for whom. Limited the amount a picture could make or worse pooled all the money so the failing pictures were compensated from the successful ones (i.e. stole from the successful producers and gave that money to the producers who failed) . Do you think you would be happy with your choices? Do you think you would see a better product created? Do you think producers would 'risk' as much knowing they would not reap all the rewards of their undertaking?

I have absolutely no idea what you think you're replying to; the issue in question was whether the government would help to subsidize a small portion of the purchase of motion picture film stock. That's a very small amount of socialism. It's not Communism, it's not the creation of a command economy, it's not the government taking over the means of production or dictating terms on the content of the product.

 

The two most prominent areas americans complain about are healthcare and education.... Why? Lack of fierce competition that drives 'quality'.

Education has gone down in quality over the last 30 years because Republicans have systematically been reducing its funding in order to make people like you complain that public education can't possibly work. "It doesn't work, why should we give it more money?" but the whole reason it doesn't work is that it's been deprived of money for political reasons. Healthcare is awful because the decisions about your health are guided by how much money your insurance company will make or lose, and not on whether it's actually good for you or not. Should you live or die? Well, what would make us the most money?

 

What you are proposing in cheering on Socialism will only lessen the quality of the choices you have and drive quality and productivity to an all time low. You must be the only person (or a handful of few) that believes the government can do a better and more efficient job at (anything) than the private sector...

I already listed a bunch of examples of things that we already have socialized pretty successfully in this country. I'm glad that we have socialized fire departments, even though I've never had my house burn down. I'm glad we have socialized police, even though I've never had to call 911. Private industry does quite well in many, many areas, but not in every single one.

that the government knows how to spend and invest (your) money better than you do. You said you would be happy to give a big chunk of your income.... then take someone who is ill and in need of help to the doctor tomorrow and pick up the bill... then take them to a movie... that is the American Way.

I could do that. Or, being a financially smart person, I could use my money in a more efficient way. Paying the cost of an individual's care is exhorbitantly expensive. But paying the cost of many people's care is much less, for the same reason that an individual health care plan is enormously expensive, while a group plan is far cheaper and tends to cover more (This is actually exactly the situation I'm in right now- I have both an individual plan that costs $205/month for decent coverage but excludes "pre-existing conditions" that I would actually use it for, as well as a group plan that costs a mere $50/month and has no exclusions, and also covers vision and dental to boot). By increasing the risk pool, we drastically decrease the costs for each individual, allowing people access to far better care for far less. Thus, if I really wanted to help people with my money (which I do), I would want to spread my money out over as many people as possible, in the most efficient manner as possible- ideally a single-payer system.

[K Borowski]

Are the Republicans *really* the cause of all the country's ills Scott? :blink: George W. Bush is a Republican, true, but so was Abraham Lincoln.

 

As to all of these complaints about a bailout for buying film stock, I find it interesting that all of them are coming from RED users. Hey guys, give the film industry that you are trying to systematically destroy a break every once in a while, will you? If you can't handle it, crawl back into your hole.

[Walter Graff]

Are the Republicans *really* the cause of all the country's ills Scott? :blink: George W. Bush is a Republican, true, but so was Abraham Lincoln.

 

As to all of these complaints about a bailout for buying film stock, I find it interesting that all of them are coming from RED users. Hey guys, give the film industry that you are trying to systematically destroy a break every once in a while, will you? If you can't handle it, crawl back into your hole.

 

It would take far more than a few RED fans to put film to bed.

[Scott Fritzshall]

Are the Republicans *really* the cause of all the country's ills Scott? :blink:

They're the ones who have been in charge for the past 8 years, and whose rhetoric has pretty much driven Washington's ideology for the past 30 years. They're not the cause of all of the country's ills, but they've certainly been a significant factor in many of them.

 

George W. Bush is a Republican, true, but so was Abraham Lincoln.

You do know that the parties switched sides a few decades ago, right?

[Paul Bruening]

Hello Scott,

 

I like how you've thought the questions out and not jumped in with knee-jerk or preporgrammed answers (honestly. I'm not being my frequent, smart-ass self on this one). While I understand the need for "social vigor" as a motivator for our society (keeping us lean and hungry to drive productivity) I also see it as a stupid trick that has serious downsides. Torturing poor people just so they'll be available as wage slaves for the upper classes is low-down and dirty social control. Even with the psychological limitations of humanity, there really must be a better way of doing things. Is this really the height of man's expression?

[K Borowski]

Well, not to get too political, but anyone who blindly votes for one party over another at any occasion is just asking for trouble.

 

Democratic administrations have gotten this country in just as much trouble as Republican ones. Really, the problem lies in just having two parties. There is no real "middle-class" party out there. This country desperately needs one.

 

Let's end all of this political nonsense with a movie quote: "Mr. Ryan, I am a politician, which means I'm a cheat, and a liar; and when I'm not kissing babies, I'm stealing their lolly pops."

 

Frankly I am in favor of a Kodak bailout. Is there a single American company that is a player in electronics anymore, industrially? Protectionism can get out of hand, but there are clearly foreign entities (who will remain unnamed, though we all know who they are) whose governments subsidize and unfairly aid their industries.

 

Unfortunately, despite the fact that it is socialist, we either need to match them tit for tat in subsidizing our own industries, put up a mirror tariff, or lobby to end the practice.

 

So I think the one party view of blind subsidization is just as bad as the other party view of no subsidization and make the money whatever way you can in whatever country you can.

 

The fact remains that this country is going to collapse if it doesn't eventually even out its deficit and pay off its National debt. Not to belittle foreigners, but we need to mind our own business first.

 

And hell, if RED were a predominantly domestic entity (as in domestic components and labor), I'd be all in favor of their being subsized to better compete with Sony. Unfortunately, seems like they are against "socialism" too.