Bizarroworld?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 1:40 pm

Okay, what is going on here? We have Republicans screaming out against a jobs bill with rhetoric straight from the playbook of the populist Democrats of old. When did the MT Republicans decide that they were anti-business and anti-rich people?

Or is this just their reaction to a Democrat having a (rare?) good idea for the economy. The attempt to remove the incentive for movies with ratings more severe than PG was cute -- at least somebody remembered that the party is trying to market itself as the party of the theocracy.

http://bozemandailychronicle.com/articl ... iebill.txt

Boy, if you take away common sense business attitudes, I no longer have any reason to even think about voting Republican. I hope this isn't a trend that's sweeping the nation -- I would not look forward to anti-business attitudes coupled with increased censorship of public media. That sounds eerily like the basic philosophy of a recent failed empire.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:03 pm

BAC,

I agree with you that the R's have their heads up their arses on this one. But, to label this as a "jobs" bill is a joke. If you've ever been around movie sets, the "local" jobs aspect is not significant. Yes, the movie folk spend a lot of money, which is great & we should try to get as much of that here as possible, but they really don't create (and certainly don't sustain) any real jobs. Most of the jobs are menial, low-paying, and last a month or 2 at most. That is NOT job creation; Dems touting it as such are simply spouting sound-bites.

Again, we SHOULD do everything we can to promote $$$ being spent in our state and if this bill brings bucks home, I'm all for it. Let's just not get TOO carried away with the "jobs" aspect...

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:06 pm

In my opinion, anything that brings capital into the state is a jobs bill. That increases the revenues and profits of local companies, thus allowing them to grow by adding employees. This is the basic philosophy behind every tax cut that has ever been promoted as being good for the economy.

The in-state film jobs directly related to the projects are just gravy.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:45 pm

Then maybe we need a new category: A "Revenue" Bill. This movie bill doesn't create specific jobs, but DOES increase revenue to local business which may (or may not) lead to an increase in the # of jobs in the local market. To me, a "jobs" bill would be a tax break, say, for Boeing to build a manufacturing facility in the state; in other words, the bill leads DIRECTLY to new jobs.

PoTAYto, poTAHto...

Kalispellians have seen this directly with the arrival of 2 (and subsequent departure of one) customer-service telecomm companies. The City of Kalispell loaded up a couple of financial incentive packages to lure these companies to town PROVIDED said companies met specific employment target levels. I must say I was pleasantly surprised with their foresight and their innovativeness.

Consider me a "Caveman Capitalist":

Income, good
Expenses, bad

Profit, good
Taxes, bad

Pretty simple, isn't it?

Cat-theotherwhitemeat · Post by **Cat-theotherwhitemeat** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 3:00 pm

Without this bill, the movie makers stay away like they have been doing, and the state makes nothing on the films made elsewhere. I find it hard to believe that any of the legislator's voted no on this.

Sen. Jerry O'Neil, R-Columbia Falls said:

The bill was nothing more than corporate welfare, Sen. Jerry O'Neil, R-Columbia Falls. "It gives tax incentives to a select group of millionaires,"

Why is it corporate welfare when they have a choice to go elsewhere and spend millions, and they pick the best/cheapest alternative? It amazes me that anyone would vote no on this. I would love to sit down with someone like O'Neil and hear why, WHY he would be against this. It's a clean industry that comes in and spends a ton, then leaves. So what if you have to give them a break.

Here's another quote from this guy:

O'Neil also tried to amend the bill so the credit wouldn't apply to films aiming for a R or NC-17 rating, but the amendment failed.

They didn't quote his entire statement which was something like this...."I think we should only give credits to those making family movies. We don't want to see those movies with all those sluts in it". Most of the floor laughed and he later apologized.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 3:16 pm

In order to tie-in this thread and the "flat tax" thread, I would say that O'Neil is the downside of living in a state with a small population and relatively responsive government...He's just nut job...a right-wing nut job...but there are plenty of those in his district.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 3:19 pm

It would be nice if the rapture would come pretty soon so guys like that could be whisked away forever. Then the rest of us could live in peace.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 3:40 pm

ya, I would definitely be left behind. This is just way too much fun.

grizbeer · Post by **grizbeer** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 4:27 pm

Look what happened after A River Runs Through It was filmed - rich people and celebrities moved on and bough up all the land

O.k. I'm kidding, but truly could anyone say that the film industry is republican friendly? Clearly resistance to this bill is simply politics, why lower costs for the industry that hates you.

Related rant, though, does anyone remember when Redford said he had to film A.R.R.T.I he claimed he couldn't use the Blackfoot to film because it was so badly polluted by mining and timber? What a joke. Somehow it escaped him that the Milltown Dam and the great Clark Fork flood that washed all the pollutants down the river occurred before the story took place. It came out later that he needed more lighting to film, but the urban legend was born in many peoples mind that mining and logging had destroyed this beautiful river that McClean used to fish.

BTW, the film industry is far from a clean industry with respect to the environment - think of the nasty chemicals used to make films.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 4:52 pm

grizbeer wrote:BTW, the film industry is far from a clean industry with respect to the environment - think of the nasty chemicals used to make films.

Like the LSD that was used to make "The Wall?"

grizbeer · Post by **grizbeer** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 5:52 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
grizbeer wrote:BTW, the film industry is far from a clean industry with respect to the environment - think of the nasty chemicals used to make films.
Like the LSD that was used to make "The Wall?"

Exactly, and do you have any idea how much meth it takes to keep a film crew awake for 72 takes because the lead actress was so coked out she couldn't remember her lines? Well i don't either but I can imagine.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 6:01 pm

grizbeer wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
grizbeer wrote:BTW, the film industry is far from a clean industry with respect to the environment - think of the nasty chemicals used to make films.
Like the LSD that was used to make "The Wall?"
Exactly, and do you have any idea how much meth it takes to keep a film crew awake for 72 takes because the lead actress was so coked out she couldn't remember her lines? Well i don't either but I can imagine.

Sigh ... okay, I'll complete the thought. So that gets us back to jobs aspect of the whole thing -- more jobs selling meth for [sigh again] former assistant MSU football coaches.

grizbeer · Post by **grizbeer** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:55 pm

Wow. I am really impressed BAC, you were 2 steps ahead of me this whole thread. Never even saw that one coming.