Is it S...L...O...W... out there, work-wise?

[Walter Graff]

I feel your pain we've all been there.

 

Fact is this industry is near impossible to make a living in even during the best of economic conditions. There are simply too many people that want in, and too few positions to be had.

 

What can ya do?

 

R,

 

Amen, I get hundreds of resumes a year unsolicited and when I ask for a particular job opening, I get near 1000 per ad. My last ad looking for one day of Pa work got nearly 1700 responses. Most of those resumes were useless, poorly written and with not enough real expereince to be a PA. Everyone has director, and every other title, even though they are 21years old and have little real world experince with those titles. Unsolicited resumes are put in the trash 100% of the time by me and most everyone I know. Sorry folks, this industry is not as big as the marketing divisions of camera makers want you to think. There are just too many of you who will not make a career in this industry, even if you buy a RED camera. Somehow film making became a therapy for folks who fantasize about making their mark on society. Get real therapy, it's cheaper. This industry will drive you all more nuts than you already are. There just isn't enough work, isn't enough sustainable work, and isn't enough of a ladder to make 40 years of a career doing it. Yea don't stop chasing your dreams but don't forget to be realistic. Less than double digit percentages of you will make a sustainable career in this industry.

[Guest]

Great maybe I should've moved to Canada instead. . . :(

 

One show moved from NY state to Vancouver when the announcement was made, the show was called Fringe:

 

http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2009/02/fringe-fox.html

 

The good news for NYC is that it will continue to attract lot's of productions that want to be set in NYC. Toronto and Vancouver can only stand in so much. Still not a smart move on the part of the NY state gov't, especially when Ontario to the North has a 35% tax credit plus 25% federal, and Michigan to the West has a 40% tax credit. Not a smart move at all.

 

 

My last ad looking for one day of Pa work got nearly 1700 responses.

 

Well I will soon be crewing the feature I am in pre-production on, if it stays on the rails of course. I am dreading this experience in the middle of a recession, I took a huge amount of abuse from people I could not hire onto Dark Reprieve, what will it be like this time?

 

These film schools have got to start taking ownership of this problem at some stage, they are selling young people a pipe dream in most cases.

 

R,

[Walter Graff]

These film schools have got to start taking ownership of this problem at some stage, they are selling young people a pipe dream in most cases.

 

One of the best things you ever said and more than accurate. These schools are selling film making like it's a reality more than what it is, a dream for most. My friend works at a major film school in NY and the horror stories he tells me about how they rope these kids in and present scenarios that will never exist for them is sickening.

[Brad Grimmett]

Well I will soon be crewing the feature I am in pre-production on, if it stays on the rails of course. I am dreading this experience in the middle of a recession, I took a huge amount of abuse from people I could not hire onto Dark Reprieve, what will it be like this time?

 

R,

This seems like a perfect situation for a low budget producer, i.e., you. The economy sucks and you've got jobs available. I'm sure you can take advantage of a lot of people. I doubt you'll take as much abuse for offering low rates as you did before.

[Paul Bruening]

One of the best things you ever said and more than accurate. These schools are selling film making like it's a reality more than what it is, a dream for most. My friend works at a major film school in NY and the horror stories he tells me about how they rope these kids in and present scenarios that will never exist for them is sickening.

 

Every department in every school does this. The art department at my alma mater refused to start a business-for-artists class that the whole art student population asked for. We found out later that they felt that the class would reveal the impossibility for artist to make a living in art and would destroy the department's student roll. These days, what school offering can boast guaranteed placement? I know a guy locally that has a chem engineering degree. He couldn't find any related work even in his native New Jersey. He's working at Home Despot locally and getting a civil engineering degree mostly to ride out the recession in school.

 

As long as cash holds out, we can maintain hope. If they kill cash... well. In God we'll just have to trust.

[Guest]

This seems like a perfect situation for a low budget producer, i.e., you. The economy sucks and you've got jobs available. I'm sure you can take advantage of a lot of people. I doubt you'll take as much abuse for offering low rates as you did before.

 

Ok some clarification, since I realize what you are implying.

 

1) This is not a "low budget movie" multiple seven figures is not low budget in my world. It's only low budget to people that spend 150 million to make a movie like The Watchmen.

 

2) I have no desire to take advantage of any one, I never have. As I have stated numerous times on this board, and I'll say it again, my crew was paid ABOVE union rates on Dark Reprieve. The Canadian actors union (ACTRA) allows rates as low as $210.00 a day under the TIP program, my budget was well below TIP maximums and I paid them $300.00 a day! Please tell me how that is taking advantage of some one?

 

3) The abuse I received for the jobs I had on offer for Dark Reprieve had nothing to do with the rates I was paying. People starting freaking out when I said I wasn't going to hire them because I was hiring some one else. I only needed one gaffer not 50 of them. I could of had 50 them and more if I hired every one who applied.

 

Honestly Brad this working class hero routine of yours is really getting old.

 

R,

[Guest]

These days, what school offering can boast guaranteed placement?

 

Med School ;)

 

R,

[John Sprung]

The good news for NYC is that it will continue to attract lot's of productions that want to be set in NYC. Toronto and Vancouver can only stand in so much.

 

What I'm seeing is a lot of shows that do, say, 10 days in Toronto and 2 in NYC.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[David Rakoczy]

Honestly Brad this working class hero routine of yours is really getting old.

R,

 

I agree. "I am sure you can take advantage of a lot of people"-Brad Grimmett... Wow.. how insulting! :o

 

Remember Mr. Grimmett, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money to spend. It is pretty pathetic (not you.. the attitude) that anyone risking capital and creating jobs is the enemy. Believe me.. most (if not all) who are hired on Richard's show will be very grateful. I noticed you never mentioned a word at the fact that the Union 'shakes down' productions.... you've read my posts.. my good friend was shook down for $140,000 USD. "New York wants their money" they said... I was there.. I heard it with my own ears... that will ring in my head forever. <_<... yet... you say nothing about that.

[Saul Rodgar]

Remember Mr. Grimmett, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money to spend. It is pretty pathetic (not you.. the attitude) that anyone risking capital and creating jobs is the enemy.

 

 

Things get a little dicier when people's pensions are at risk, used to underwrite the Capitalist ventures of some power- drunk Wall Street financial-gambling CEO. Capitalism gone awry _the on-steroids, cowboy variant of late_ is just as evil as pure Marxist socialism. No one is claiming "Everything Is / Should Be Free."

 

The issue with pure Capitalists (not you or anyone in particular) is that they don't realize that as long as they need people as labor_and society around them_ they must be preared to share the fruits of their mutual effort, in a proportional and fair fashion.

 

Paying someone a living wage with benefits, guarantees that when the person -or descendants of- is undoubtedly needed again, he/she will be there to provide help as necessary. And everyone has needed (or will need) help at one point or another.

 

The social infraestructure that made possible for Bill Gates, say, earn $50 + plus BILLIONS must be up kept wtih. If Microsoft were a previously-unknown far away planet, to which our boy Bill had emigrated to in his early youth alone, one could sucessfully argue that he is entitled to to keep his preceeds entirely to himself.

 

The way I see it, to meet the challenges ahead Capital and Labor need each other -as they have so far- and the sooner we settle that, the better off we will all be.

 

P.S. Any preachiness or ego bruising to anyone here is unintentional.

[Brian Dzyak]

Remember Mr. Grimmett, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money to spend.

 

 

Hmmm, that's very untrue, yet you suggest it as a fact.

 

The truth is that in REALITY, those who have "attempted" Socialism haven't really approached it honestly. The basic ideal is that resources are consolidated then redistributed fairly and equally amongst all. The reality is that greedy selfish scared humans are involved so once resources are "consolidated," those who have consolidated the resources are loath to give them back up again out of fear of losing power and money.

 

Soooo, this notion that unrestrained Capitalism is the ideal is bunk. Reaganomics is the cause of our decline today. Thirty years of anti-labor, pro-wealthy policies have brought us to this. Should we all have the opportunity to achieve wealth? Sure. Should we be allowed to do it at the detriment of others? No.

 

But therein lies the difference between Republicans and Democrats in the US. Dems appreciate that not everyone has the opportunity or the "smarts" to achieve wealth so "Liberals" are willing to build in social safety nets so that the fabric of a civilized society remains relatively cohesive. Republicans, on the other hand, don't care about others or the greater good so long as their own bank accounts grow larger, that's all that matters.

 

 

With TRUE Socialism, you would never run out of "other people's money to spend" because all the money is everyone's money. In the Republican "trickle down" version, yeah, you're right. The Rich get to keep their money (via NAFTA, no tariffs, shipping jobs overseas, tax breaks, etc) under the guise that they'll "create jobs" and help the economy and the poor. Only, they are allowed to search the globe for cheaper and cheaper labor and justify it with the argument that "hey, they love the work."

 

Just to clarify, the dollar amount is unknown at this point, but the "green" jobs that are being created with the Stimulus Plan aren't really going to help the United States. Why? Because, REPUBLICANS blocked the addition of an America first initiative that would have put manufacturing back into our borders. So, what this means is that when solar panels (etc) are made, the manufacturing dollars (our tax dollars) will be spent overseas (China, etc) while only the installation and maintenance work remains with US workers. Republicans are wholly against workers rights so long as (as they call it) "small businesses" get to profit. The truth is that they don't care one iota about ANY workers... all they care about is getting the cheapest labor possible in order to ensure the greatest profits.

 

The TRUTH is that if WORKERS are given the opportunity to work for fair wages, then businesses will profit because then there are consumers who have money to spend on products that businesses make. It's "Duh!" logic, but for some reason, Republicans don't seem to want to get it. Throwing money at any business expecting them to just hire employees "because" is ludicrous. They won't ever hire anyone if there aren't enough consumers to buy the product. And if Corporations are allowed to continue shipping jobs overseas, then the consumers HERE will never have enough money to spend no matter how much money a government throws at the businesses.

 

It's ridiculous that anyone has to actually spend time explaining this because it's so obvious, but clearly it must not be. Businesses CAN'T survive if there aren't consumers to buy what they make. And consumers can't buy "things" if they don't have money. So as long as Republicans insist on keeping our work overseas where wages are significantly lower than what our cost of living is here, then we'll never get out of this mess. Thirty + years of profiteering with the aid of Reaganomics has created the environment for this problem.

 

The problem with UNRESTRAINED UnRegulated Capitalism is that you eventually bleed the system dry. The rich have all the money. The other 90% of the population has to struggle just to keep a roof over their heads and can't buy the stuff the other 10% is trying to sell.

 

It's not hard. It's just common-sense.

[Brad Grimmett]

1) This is not a "low budget movie" multiple seven figures is not low budget in my world.

Well, it's low budget to the vast majority of people working in movies as a profession.

2) I have no desire to take advantage of any one, I never have. As I have stated numerous times on this board, and I'll say it again, my crew was paid ABOVE union rates on Dark Reprieve. The Canadian actors union (ACTRA) allows rates as low as $210.00 a day under the TIP program, my budget was well below TIP maximums and I paid them $300.00 a day! Please tell me how that is taking advantage of some one?

Hmm, you sure are defensive.

3) The abuse I received for the jobs I had on offer for Dark Reprieve had nothing to do with the rates I was paying. People starting freaking out when I said I wasn't going to hire them because I was hiring some one else. I only needed one gaffer not 50 of them. I could of had 50 them and more if I hired every one who applied.

So people freaked out just because you told them you were going with someone else? I find that hard to believe. I suspect that wasn't the only reason.

Honestly Brad this working class hero routine of yours is really getting old.

 

R,

And your, "I produced one horror movie and I know everything about the business" routine is getting old. You act as if you're smarter, and better, than everyone, and it's pretty annoying.

On a personal note, you went out of your way to attack me personally a few years ago, so I just plain don't like you. You're own words and actions on this forum lead me to believe that you're the kind of person that only looks out for himself and doesn't give a crap about anyone else. Of course, you repeat ad nauseum how well you treat people, but your past actions here as well as your defensiveness when questioned about it is quite telling I think.

[Brad Grimmett]

Remember Mr. Grimmett, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money to spend.

Why are you preaching to me about the evils of socialism? I mentioned nothing about socialism in my post.

It is pretty pathetic (not you.. the attitude) that anyone risking capital and creating jobs is the enemy.

I never said, or implied any such thing. Where are you getting this stuff?

I noticed you never mentioned a word at the fact that the Union 'shakes down' productions.... you've read my posts.. my good friend was shook down for $140,000 USD. "New York wants their money" they said... I was there.. I heard it with my own ears... that will ring in my head forever. <_<... yet... you say nothing about that.

What are you talking about? What does your assertion that unions shake people down have anything to do with what I was talking about? Are you responding to something someone else wrote on some other forum?

[David Rakoczy]

So Saul.. is every person to earn $50k a year?... a 'living' wage?

 

A couple thoughts from Jefferson who must have been a prophet as well as a great American:

 

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson

 

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world. -Thomas Jefferson

 

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -Thomas Jefferson

 

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. -Thomas Jefferson

 

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. -Thomas Jefferson

 

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson

 

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. -Thomas Jefferson

 

Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:

'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'

[David Rakoczy]

The truth is that in REALITY, those who have "attempted" Socialism haven't really approached it honestly. The basic ideal is that resources are consolidated then redistributed fairly and equally amongst all.

 

 

Brian, That is humanly impossible.

 

1. Taking from those who work hard and or risk capital and giving to those who did not is not the least bit fair. It undermines a society and impedes if not completely stifles the productivity unleashed in a Free Market Economy.

 

2. Who are these 'angels' who are going to decide all this so fairly?

 

The reality is that greedy selfish scared humans are involved so once resources are "consolidated," those who have consolidated the resources are loath to give them back up again out of fear of losing power and money.

 

You just contradicted your own point... or rather.. made mine. Also, that sounds exactly like the huge government so many are so eager to build...

 

But therein lies the difference between Republicans and Democrats in the US. Dems appreciate that not everyone has the opportunity or the "smarts" to achieve wealth so "Liberals" are willing to build in social safety nets so that the fabric of a civilized society remains relatively cohesive. Republicans, on the other hand, don't care about others or the greater good so long as their own bank accounts grow larger, that's all that matters.

 

Brian, you make so many intelligent thoughtful posts here.. I can assure you, this is not one of them. This is a generalization only the ignorant would buy. This chart shows the facts:

 

 

 

As you can see.. it is the poorest and arguably the most conservative State in the Nation that gives the most. This is why Liberals are all for the government stealing from those who have (earned) and giving to those who have not because they themselves will not give.

 

Obama Charity

 

Biden Charity

[Brian Dzyak]

Brian, That is humanly impossible.

 

1. Taking from those who work hard and or risk capital and giving to those who did not is not the least bit fair. It undermines a society and impedes if not completely stifles the productivity unleashed in a Free Market Economy.

 

Not really. If the money and power is consolidated to just a few, civilized society crumbles and can't sustain itself. The modern Republican economic theory suggests that if the rich are allowed to keep most of their money, they will just altruistically "trickle it down" and the economy will work perfectly fine. We have thirty years of Reaganomics resulting in our situation today to prove the Republican theory wrong. Dead wrong. When the Middle Class and poor are no longer given the opportunity to earn wages commiserate with the cost of living IN THEIR COUNTRY, then they can no longer afford to buy the things that the rich are making. That results in a domino effect wherein less sales mean layoffs meaning less income to the consumers meaning less purchasing, and on and on and on.

 

Nobody is suggesting absolute "welfare" the way you describe above. That is the standard Republican scare-tactic to convince the gun nuts and religious zealots to vote Republican. The truth is that Republican leadership uses guns, religion, and welfare scare-tactics to convince hapless non-rich people to vote for policies that hurt anyone who isn't already rich. What non-Republicans want is fairness. When Reagan-esque policies encourage AMERICAN corporations to make US workers compete with others who don't have our cost of living, then the system fails. The rich bleed the system dry and then pull out the standard scare tactics to keep the non-rich voting against their own economic interests.

 

Unregulated Capitalism stifles an economy and productivity, not the other way around.

 

 

 

2. Who are these 'angles' who are going to decide all this so fairly?

Precisely, which is why pure Socialism has never worked. And it is the same reason Reaganomics (Trickle Down) will never work either, which is just another form of Socialism. Ironic, isn't it?

 

When Corporations are given tax breaks etc which are meant to encourage them to create jobs, it shouldn't mean they get to troll the planet for cheaper labor to exploit. They are using OUR government to profit on the backs of its own people. It is economic terrorism with the blessing of the Republican leadership in the name of corporate profit. They "save" money via tax breaks, then save more in manufacturing (by exporting jobs), then make money by selling that cheaper product at higher prices to us. They get "earnings" at every step of the process thanks to Republican Pro Corporation/Anti Worker policies.

 

Who loses? The American workers who "gave" the tax breaks in the first place and who have to pay higher prices for goods that cost the corporation less to make. And you want to discuss what's "fair"?

 

 

 

2. Who are these 'angles' who are going to decide all this so fairly? You just contradicted your own point... or rather.. made mine. Also, that sounds exactly like the huge government so many are so eager to build...

 

Uh, I did? Hardly. You'll have to explain how anything I've said in any way supports the greedy Republican economic cause.

 

The fact is that the "Trickle Down" theory COULD work but ONLY if significant changes are made to the tax/tariff rules.

 

For instance, if a corporation takes one penny in tax breaks, they have to be required to keep EVERY job within the borders of the nation that gave it the tax break. If they export one job or use one "part" that comes from anywhere else in the world, they not only lose their tax incentives, but that product that is being imported back into the US should get hit with MASSIVE tariffs. This would discourage the practice of taking the money that is meant to stimulate OUR economy and keep it going to our own people...the people who allowed the corporation to have the tax breaks that were meant to stimulate our own economy.

 

And need I remind you that REAGAN and TWO BUSHES grew government AND our deficits MORE than any Democrat ever has. Clinton actually gave us a surplus, which Bush managed to blow away. Republicans SAY they want small governments and less spending, so why is it that our economy ALWAYS gets worse when one of them is in charge?

 

 

 

 

Brian, you make so many intelligent thoughtful posts here.. I can assure you, this is not one of them. This is a generalization only the ignorant would buy.

 

Well, thankfully, there seem to be more "ignorant" like me lately than those who bought the Republican mantra hook-line-and sinker for the past thirty years. If seeing the truth about society and politics makes me ignorant, then I'll wear the label proudly.

 

 

The "disagreement" seems to come from a basic difference in philosophy of life. Republicans are for personal profit and gain at the expense of everyone else (ergo the constant drumbeat against "welfare.") Dems and most everyone else see the big picture and realize that we're all on this island together. Nobody... NOBODY is suggesting that we just hand over checks (like your Bush Administration has done) to become a pure welfare state. That's a fallacy that the Republicans like to propagate in order to scare the "ignorant" masses into voting for Republicans. What "we" want and need is a system wherein nobody is allowed to get so wealthy that the whole of society suffers. Thirty years of Reaganomics have brought us to this point because basic human greed and fear drives people to want to earn and KEEP as much of their personal wealth as possible even if it means the rest of society suffers. The end result is either a massive fix (as the world is desperately attempting to do now) or the rich have to retreat behind their gates lest society crumbles and the poor attack violently. It HAS happened before in history and we are not immune. The system has to be reset from time to time unless consistent "equalization" is done all the time.

 

And perhaps "equalization" DOES mean taking money out of the hands of those who have profited so heavily in the recent past, but that's the fault of the Republicans who pushed for this system for so long. If consistent fairness (through regulation and oversight) had been allowed to be enacted, then we wouldn't have this mess. So, yes, unless we want the government to print more money and cause our currency to become effectively useless, the rich will just have to give up some of their ill-gotten gain and redistribute it as they should have been doing all this time anyway. Then maybe, if fair economic policies are enacted and enforced, we won't have to go through this again and everyone CAN work and be productive instead of waiting for another REPUBLICAN-LIKE stimulus check in their mailbox.

[Brian Dzyak]

Brian, you make so many intelligent thoughtful posts here.. I can assure you, this is not one of them. This is a generalization only the ignorant would buy. This chart shows the facts:

 

 

 

As you can see.. it is the poorest and arguably the most conservative State in the Nation that gives the most. This is why Liberals are all for the government stealing from those who have (earned) and giving to those who have not because they themselves will not give.

 

Obama Charity

 

Biden Charity

 

"Generosity index"? Really?

 

First, as if I'd trust any chart that Republicans create.

 

But more importantly, are you suggesting that the planetwide economy should rely on charity? :blink: What that chart shows is that those who are poor HAVE TO rely on charity to get by. How 'bout this instead: we create a fair economic policy that encourages Workers Rights so that people wouldn't HAVE TO rely on charitable donations to get by because the rich have hoarded most of the resources?

 

Because the rich sometimes throw a few pennies out to the poor serfs isn't proof that the rich care about anyone else. When they are ready to honestly reinvest their wealth the way they are supposed to (via tax breaks), then I'll believe that Republican leadership actually cares about anyone beyond themselves.

[K Borowski]

Guys, guys, guys, come on, it's got to be a balance. Half of the "party politics" are BS anyway. The key to picking the best candidate is seeing past the party front and the hype. People who vote for just one party are a wasted vote anyway. . .

 

Historically though, Democrats, or the "social" party, are best at fixing economic downturns. What scared me though, is the last time we had something like this, it took a World War to stimulate us out of it.

 

God forbid it, but tough economic times drive people to violence. Let's see past all the hype and partisan bickering for once on this forum though, OK? People on either sides have their reasons for seeing things the way they see them. Neother Democrats nor Republicans are "bad guys". That is the first step in seeing the world rationally, in my opinion.

 

We are all human beings on God's green Earth, and, with a few poignant exceptions here, we all have valid methods to our madness. . .

[Brian Dzyak]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jh...cramer-we-trust

 

There is blame to go around. I'm sure that Reps will call Mr. Stewart "Liberal," but only because he's one of many who are exposing the lecherous shenanigans of the nefarious who ran this economy into the ground all with the help of Republican economic policy. Truth hurts.

[Guest]

so I just plain don't like you. You're own words and actions on this forum lead me to believe that you're the kind of person that only looks out for himself and doesn't give a crap about anyone else.

 

That of course is fine, I'm sure you know the feeling is 100% mutual so there is no love lost on my end. I just plain don't like you either. I'm not going to waste bandwidth responding to your other comments, why? Because I don't give a *bleep* what you think!

 

R,

[David Rakoczy]

"Generosity index"? Really? First, as if I'd trust any chart that Republicans create.

 

That was created by using the IRS tax returns... it is not a 'republican' chart.

 

But more importantly, are you suggesting that the planetwide economy should rely on charity? :blink:

 

No.. not 'more' importantly... because that was your point and the facts disprove your point.

 

Now.. no.. I can not take on the entire 'planet'.. I am concerned with my own back yard (the USA).. then we can help the rest of the world... if they would like our help... assuming we can help.

 

What that chart shows is that those who are poor HAVE TO rely on charity to get by.

 

No it does not.. it shows that people help people.. that conservatives (whether they be Republicans, Independents or [some] Democrats) actually GIVE... out of their pocket... without being forced or their money stolen from them to give to others. BIG difference. Again, it demonstrates the exact opposite of what you so boldly and categorically claim about the republicans.

 

How 'bout this instead: we create a fair economic policy that encourages Workers Rights so that people wouldn't HAVE TO rely on charitable donations to get by because the rich have hoarded most of the resources?

 

Sounds like what we have right now (for the most part).. I, personally, know families that came over from S. Asia.. set up shop and are very VERY successful! They don't have their hands out.. for hand outs. They live the American dream. Anyone can! Look at our President!

 

Because the rich sometimes throw a few pennies out to the poor serfs isn't proof that the rich care about anyone else. When they are ready to honestly reinvest their wealth the way they are supposed to (via tax breaks), then I'll believe that Republican leadership actually cares about anyone beyond themselves.

 

The facts prove otherwise and it is here that you loose many many people. I, as an INDEPENDENT, read your rather lengthy posts on this subject and see how you insult and generalize the republicans. Hey, both Parties SUCK... including yours! Bush started what Obama is finishing... give us a break. But, Brian, you make these blatantly generalized statements that totally diffuse your argument... no matter how many pages you word it.

 

The truth is that Republican leadership uses guns, religion, and welfare scare-tactics to convince hapless non-rich people to vote for policies that hurt anyone who isn't already rich.

 

Hardly.. Guns.. are a RIGHT we have as Americans to have and to own... to protect ourselves from intruders, criminals.. or a government gone apostate. If you don't like that.. well, you are in the wrong country.

 

You might want to reread the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...

 

Brian, I respect your right to your opinion, as misguided as it is (as I see it). I will not further this discussion except to post a short video link later today regarding Capitalism... or Free Market Economics.

 

I wish you and your family a fantastic weekend.. health and prosperity.. I pray for the same for Mr. Grimmett and his family.

 

You guys have a great day!

[Matthew Buick]

Well work has definately slowed for me lately, nobody's is asking me to shoot their 35mm feature films anymore. :P

 

Seriously though, tough economical times are just an excuse for me to shoot all the more, I took my first 35mm today!

Edited March 14, 2009 by Matthew Buick

[Saul Rodgar]

So Saul.. is every person to earn $50k a year?... a 'living' wage?

 

A couple thoughts from Jefferson who must have been a prophet as well as a great American.

 

I seem to recall that Thomas Jefferson, who famously stated "All Men Are Created Equal," was a slave owner himself. Not only that, but DNA and historical records point out that he fathered children with slave Sally Hemings, an African American woman _children whom he never legally recognized as his.

 

Hey, most of us are walking paradoxes. But the larger point is that things have massively changed since Jefferson's time. Integral parts of the fabric of American society like Social Security, Medicare, pension plans, unemployment benefits, etc, were tantamount to pure insanity in Jefferson's time. To go back and say, Jefferson is the answer to ALL our current problems would be pretty catastrophic. We need to move forward, not back 200+ years, for our philosophical guidance.

Edited March 14, 2009 by Saul Rodgar

[David Rakoczy]

Sure Saul.. throw the baby out with the bath water... <_< Interesting how you attacked him as a person and not what he wrote...

 

Should we only listen to those who (are) or (have been) perfected?

 

In this case can ANYONE speak...?

 

I know of only one.

[K Borowski]

Well work has definately slowed for me lately, nobody's is asking me to shoot their 35mm feature films anymore. :P

 

Seriously though, tough economical times are just an excuse for me to shoot all the more, I took my first 35mm today!

 

With what, a disposable?