First time visitor? Learn more.

Hollywood gets a tax cut in Fiscal Cliff deal

by Rodan ( 112 Comments › )
Filed under Democratic Party, Entertainment, Progressives at January 2nd, 2013 - 11:30 am

The Fiscal Cliff was a political disaster for Republicans. They sabotaged John Boehner’s Plan B, which raised taxes on people making over a million dollars. This strengthened Obama’s hand and the compromise was tilted in his favor.  But there’s a caveat in this bill that Republicans should have resisted. There is a special tax break for television and movie producers. The very same Hollywood Marxists who rail about tax cuts for the rich get a tax cut!

Section 317 of the freshly approved legislation includes an extension for “special expensing rules for certain film and television productions.” Congress first enacted production tax incentives favorable to the domestic entertainment industry in 2004, and extended them in 2008, but the deal was meant to expire in 2011. 

The fiscal cliff deal extends the tax incentives through 2013–even as payroll taxes rise on ordinary Americans.

The original tax incentive applied to productions costing less than $15 million to make ($20 million in low-income areas). The 2008 extension applies to all films, up to a deduction of $15 million (or $20 million in low-income areas). The incentive is especially generous to television series; it applies to each TV episode.

Hollywood players routinely beg the government to raise their taxes so they can pay their “fair share.”

Why didn’t Republicans call out Obama for giving Hollywood a tax cut? Many Republican politicians rail about Hollywood, yet they do nothing to financially do damage to Hollywood. This is crazy and it shows me the GOP should not be taken serious next time they fuss about how evil Hollywood is.

I support a 30% tax on all Entertainment profits. This would hit the Hollywood profits. I rather do them economic damage than rail about how evil they are. Actions speak louder than words and the GOP is just all talk.

Tags: ,

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

112 Responses to “Hollywood gets a tax cut in Fiscal Cliff deal”
( jump to bottom )

  1. 1 | January 2, 2013 11:36 am

    I don’t get why the GOP does not try to target Hollywood through taxes.


  2. 2 | January 2, 2013 11:36 am

    I need to know exactly what this expensing deal is. So far I’ve seen nothing any more detailed than what’s listed above.


  3. heysoos
    3 | January 2, 2013 11:37 am

    brazen hypocrisy…amazing so few people seem to care…
    wtf is going on inside the GOP?


  4. heysoos
    4 | January 2, 2013 11:38 am

    pretty sure I read that Hollywood set record profits last year…this just makes no sense


  5. theoutsider
    5 | January 2, 2013 11:40 am

    @ Rodan:
    They ARE getting more taxes from Hollywood in the current deal.


  6. 6 | January 2, 2013 11:40 am

    @ heysoos:

    The 32% rule and the 68% are ignored. This was a bad deal. There are, fo rall practical purposes, no spending cuts in this deal. The Republicans caved. If they do that on gun control, they are going to go the way of the Whigs. Why bother voting for Republicans if they are going to vote like Democrats?


  7. 7 | January 2, 2013 11:40 am

    heysoos wrote:

    brazen hypocrisy…amazing so few people seem to care…
    wtf is going on inside the GOP?

    Republicans rather have Hollywood as a rhetorical boogeyman than actually try to damage them economically.


  8. 8 | January 2, 2013 11:41 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    They ARE getting more taxes from Hollywood in the current deal.

    No they are not. The Hollywood crowd will write off expenses, hence negate any tax income tax increase.

    Why don’t you support Hollywood paying it’s fair share?


  9. 9 | January 2, 2013 11:42 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Guns is the only glue holding the right together. If they buckle on that, the GOP is toast and probably 3 parties will come out of it.


  10. eaglesoars
    10 | January 2, 2013 11:44 am

    Mike C. wrote:

    I need to know exactly what this expensing deal is. So far I’ve seen nothing any more detailed than what’s listed above.

    Yeah, me too. I don’t know what this actually means in practice. In any event, I’m more upset about the goodies for wind turbines -- which have been terrible for our birds.


  11. heysoos
    11 | January 2, 2013 11:44 am

    a massive shakedown is what it is…cronyism on steroids….I told you the GOP will cut your throat…


  12. 12 | January 2, 2013 11:45 am

    heysoos wrote:

    a massive shakedown is what it is…cronyism on steroids….I told you the GOP will cut your throat…

    The GOP is all about rhetoric and having boogeymen. They are not about action to actually solve issues.


  13. heysoos
    13 | January 2, 2013 11:49 am

    Rodan wrote:

    heysoos wrote:
    a massive shakedown is what it is…cronyism on steroids….I told you the GOP will cut your throat…

    The GOP is all about rhetoric and having boogeymen. They are not about action to actually solve issues.

    yeah, piss ant issues like PP funding don’t seem so important now…the GOP is totally out of whack…they could have taken a stand here and now and they rolled over


  14. theoutsider
    14 | January 2, 2013 11:49 am

    @ Rodan:
    How are the Hollywood crowd writing off their expenses, but the Wall St bankers and Hedge fund managers aren’t?


  15. lobo91
    15 | January 2, 2013 11:49 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    This was a bad deal. There are, fo rall practical purposes, no spending cuts in this deal.

    There are never going to be any spending cuts. Ever. It’s just not going to happen.

    4 years from now, we’re going to be looking at probably $23-24 trillion in debt, an even smaller workforce than we have now (which will make the unemployment figures look better, sadly), a credit rating that will be downgraded a couple more times, and interest payments that will consume the entire budget, outside of entitlements.

    And that’s the optimistic view.


  16. 16 | January 2, 2013 11:49 am

    A 20% tax on all Entertainment profits would hit The Hollywood Marxists.


  17. 17 | January 2, 2013 11:51 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    How are the Hollywood crowd writing off their expenses, but the Wall St bankers and Hedge fund managers aren’t?

    How are the Hollywood crowd writing off their expenses

    Did you not read the article and the Bill?

    but the Wall St bankers and Hedge fund managers aren’t?

    At least they produce wealth and investments.


  18. eaglesoars
    18 | January 2, 2013 11:52 am

    Rodan wrote:

    A 20% tax on all Entertainment profits would hit The Hollywood Marxists.

    Well, let’s think this ‘expensing’ deal. Does it apply to films made in another country, e.g., Canada? New Zealand?


  19. 19 | January 2, 2013 11:54 am

    @ heysoos:

    Republicans are all rhetoric. I do not take them serious anymore. They care more about intervening on behalf on Islamists in Syria, than persecution of Egyptian Copts. But hey, the Party stands for “Christian values”!


  20. 20 | January 2, 2013 11:54 am

    I can’t know whether I’m “fer it or agin it” if I don’t know what “it” is.


  21. 21 | January 2, 2013 11:55 am

    @ eaglesoars:

    Does it apply to films made in another country, e.g., Canada? New Zealand?

    It doesn’t say and seems very broad/vague.


  22. 22 | January 2, 2013 11:55 am

    @ lobo91:

    I agree. That is probably a best case scenario, because that will have interest rates remaining flat. That can’t last forever, and when the rates go up we are well and truly screwed. We either print the money to cover the debt (we’re already doing more of that than is wise) or we default.


  23. heysoos
    23 | January 2, 2013 11:55 am

    eaglesoars wrote:

    Rodan wrote:

    A 20% tax on all Entertainment profits would hit The Hollywood Marxists.

    Well, let’s think this ‘expensing’ deal. Does it apply to films made in another country, e.g., Canada? New Zealand?

    it will kill the movie business here in NM…sqeezing the free market down to a size more easily controlled by DC


  24. 24 | January 2, 2013 11:56 am

    @ Mike C.:

    You have to pass it to find out what’s in it?


  25. 25 | January 2, 2013 11:58 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ Mike C.:
    You have to pass it to find out what’s in it?

    That train has left the station in this case.


  26. eaglesoars
    26 | January 2, 2013 12:01 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    it will kill the movie business here in NM

    huh. It hadn’t occured to me that there was much of a film industry in NM -- but now that I think about it, it makes sense. I know the TV series In Plain Sight, is ‘placed’ in Alberqerque, don’t know if it’s actually filmed there.


  27. heysoos
    27 | January 2, 2013 12:02 pm

    maybe there is a silver lining…it’s common knowledge that whatever the feds involve themselves in always turns to shit…I ask myself, why are the feds involved at all in the TV/entertainment business?….can a guy down in Clarksdale get a tax break for his broken down blues club?


  28. heysoos
    28 | January 2, 2013 12:03 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    heysoos wrote:
    it will kill the movie business here in NM
    huh. It hadn’t occured to me that there was much of a film industry in NM — but now that I think about it, it makes sense. I know the TV series In Plain Sight, is ‘placed’ in Alberqerque, don’t know if it’s actually filmed there.

    they have been making movies in NM longer than in Hollywood…Breaking Bad was filmed here….it’s been a small but steady income for NM for a hundred years


  29. 29 | January 2, 2013 12:03 pm

    They are expensing (that is to say, deducting the costs from income before calculating profits), so what are they expensing? Do other businesses get to deduct analagous expenses? As I said, I don’t know. I’d like to know. And I sure ain’t getting any info from the press.

    Maybe The Coyote will do something on it…


  30. theoutsider
    30 | January 2, 2013 12:04 pm

    @ Rodan:
    I’m all for your taxes on Hollywood. but they would be miniscule.


  31. heysoos
    31 | January 2, 2013 12:06 pm

    two weeks ago, my sister and I were down in Old Town ABQ and there was a film being shot with an open set…you could just mingle around and watch, even be an extra…kinda cool if you’ve never seen such a thing


  32. 32 | January 2, 2013 12:08 pm

    @ theoutsider:

    So are taxes on the “rich”. Even taxing the Middle Class at more than they can bear won’t pay for Obama’s deficits, though. So what d oyou propose to do about that? What is your solution for when we get $23-24 Trillion in debt? That isn’t some far-off target. That is happening in the next five years. What is your plan? How does the American economy survive (nevermind thrive) under that debt load? We are going into debt to the tune of $1.6 trillion this year. Surely you see that that is unsustainable. How do we reign that in? Or do we just ride the inevitible bankruptcy into a Brave New World?


  33. heysoos
    33 | January 2, 2013 12:08 pm

    democrats…the new Party Of The Rich


  34. lobo91
    34 | January 2, 2013 12:08 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ lobo91:

    I agree. That is probably a best case scenario, because that will have interest rates remaining flat. That can’t last forever, and when the rates go up we are well and truly screwed. We either print the money to cover the debt (we’re already doing more of that than is wise) or we default.

    That’s the ultimate goal.

    You can’t “fundamentally transform” the country without demolishing the existing one first.


  35. RIX
    35 | January 2, 2013 12:10 pm

    Elections have consequences & these are dire.
    Things will get worse before they get much worse.
    It’s clear to me that I am now out of step with
    the majority.


  36. lobo91
    36 | January 2, 2013 12:12 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Although nobody in DC is doing anything to prepare for the inevitable (and intentional) crash, ordinary Americans are doing what they can.

    It’s only a little after 10am and I already have 2 new students signed up today.


  37. lobo91
    37 | January 2, 2013 12:14 pm

    RIX wrote:

    Elections have consequences & these are dire.
    Things will get worse before they get much worse.
    It’s clear to me that I am now out of step with
    the majority.

    Considering that the majority have been deliberately turned into slobbering morons by the teachers unions, I’d say that’s a good thing.


  38. heysoos
    38 | January 2, 2013 12:15 pm

    RIX wrote:

    Elections have consequences & these are dire.
    Things will get worse before they get much worse.
    It’s clear to me that I am now out of step with
    the majority.

    well it’s nice to make new friends…did I ever tell you I hate the feds?…this is why…holding the office is far more important than actually governing…I could see BO coming a mile away…re-election poisons the entire process from top to bottom….the feds thrive on bloat…the fact that there seems to be two opposing parties is an illusion and they know it


  39. heysoos
    39 | January 2, 2013 12:16 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    Although nobody in DC is doing anything to prepare for the inevitable (and intentional) crash, ordinary Americans are doing what they can.
    It’s only a little after 10am and I already have 2 new students signed up today.

    good for you, I wish I was one of them


  40. 40 | January 2, 2013 12:16 pm

    @ lobo91:

    Yeah, my wife is finally goin got get her concealed weapons permit. People outside the Beltway can see which way the wind is blowing. That’s why gun sales are through the roof. These next few months are going to be interesting. It’ll be interesting to see which way Obama and the Congress jumps on the gun control issue.


  41. lobo91
    41 | January 2, 2013 12:19 pm

    @ heysoos:

    good for you, I wish I was one of them

    Unfortunately, NM is another state where you have to take your class from a state-authorized instructor, so I can’t help you there.


  42. RIX
    42 | January 2, 2013 12:20 pm

    @ lobo91:

    Considering that the majority have been deliberately turned into slobbering morons by the teachers unions, I’d say that’s a good thing.

    Probably, but honest debate seems impossible.
    Anyone who bucks the current trends is accused of wanting
    tom kill grandma, or being a racist, or murdering school
    children or being “downright mean.”
    It’s an Alynski slop fest.


  43. 43 | January 2, 2013 12:20 pm

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    I’m all for your taxes on Hollywood. but they would be miniscule.

    So is this tax raise on people making over 400,000. Hollywood wants higher taxes, they should get it.


  44. heysoos
    44 | January 2, 2013 12:21 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ heysoos:
    good for you, I wish I was one of them
    Unfortunately, NM is another state where you have to take your class from a state-authorized instructor, so I can’t help you there.

    the Srings is just a few hours from here


  45. theoutsider
    45 | January 2, 2013 12:22 pm

    @ Iron Fist:
    What about Simpson Bowles? That is where we are going. Paul Ryan basically voted for it yesterday.


  46. heysoos
    46 | January 2, 2013 12:23 pm

    @ heysoos:
    does NM recognize CO CCW rules etc?
    forgot that part


  47. RIX
    47 | January 2, 2013 12:23 pm

    @ heysoos:

    well it’s nice to make new friends…did I ever tell you I hate the feds?…this is why…holding the office is far more important than actually governing…I could see BO coming a mile away…re-election poisons the entire process from top to bottom….the feds thrive on bloat…the fact that there seems to be two opposing parties is an illusion and they know it

    The reelection of BHO kind of seals the deal.
    A majority of voters have bought into social
    & economic justice.
    Meaning “Give me what you have , you selfish prick!”


  48. 48 | January 2, 2013 12:24 pm

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    What about Simpson Bowles? That is where we are going. Paul Ryan basically voted for it yesterday.

    Obama does not support Simpson Bowles.


  49. lobo91
    49 | January 2, 2013 12:24 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    @ heysoos:
    does NM recognize CO CCW rules etc?
    forgot that part

    NM recognizes CO permits (and vice versa), yes.


  50. lobo91
    50 | January 2, 2013 12:26 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ heysoos:
    good for you, I wish I was one of them
    Unfortunately, NM is another state where you have to take your class from a state-authorized instructor, so I can’t help you there.

    the Srings is just a few hours from here

    My point is that if you want a NM permit, you have to take a class from a NM-authorized instructor. The physical location where you take it doesn’t matter. NM doesn’t recognize the certificate I’d give you.


  51. heysoos
    51 | January 2, 2013 12:28 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    heysoos wrote:

    lobo91 wrote:
    @ heysoos:
    good for you, I wish I was one of them
    Unfortunately, NM is another state where you have to take your class from a state-authorized instructor, so I can’t help you there.
    the Srings is just a few hours from here

    My point is that if you want a NM permit, you have to take a class from a NM-authorized instructor. The physical location where you take it doesn’t matter. NM doesn’t recognize the certificate I’d give you.

    heh, that was my next question…thanks


  52. heysoos
    52 | January 2, 2013 12:29 pm

    CA working overtime to ruin their trucking business with more crushing regs…
    http://times247.com/articles/23calif-regulations-forcing-trucks-off-the-road9


  53. 53 | January 2, 2013 12:30 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Through the roof? Gun sales are orbiting the sun somewhere out in the Oort Cloud. It’s now moved down into bolt and lever action rifles, pump shotguns and revolvers. Anything that shoots, and whatever ammo it takes.

    Not that I’m bad-mouthing bolt or lever action rifles, pump shotguns or revolvers, mind you. All demonstably lethal pieces of hardware. Own some myself.


  54. Alberta Oil Peon
    54 | January 2, 2013 12:30 pm

    Time for the Red States with GOP governors and legislatures to start using taxes to punish Progressive behavior. Put a 15% excise tax on movie tickets, a 15% excise tax on cable TV charges. Hell, put a 50% sales tax on big-screen TV’s, too, why not?

    Why not put a special tax on ethanol-blended gasoline, to push its price up above that of pure gas? Using food to make fuel is ultimately immoral, so why not tax that immorality? States already have heavy “sin taxes” on beverage alcohol and tobacco, despite the fact that it is mainly the consumers of which that suffer the most harm from their over-use. But you buy ethanol-blended motor fuel, you lose a little gas mileage, and take food out of the mouths of hungry children in the Third World.


  55. 55 | January 2, 2013 12:32 pm

    Alberta Oil Peon wrote:

    Time for the Red States with GOP governors and legislatures to start using taxes to punish Progressive behavior. Put a 15% excise tax on movie tickets, a 15% excise tax on cable TV charges. Hell, put a 50% sales tax on big-screen TV’s, too, why not?
    Why not put a special tax on ethanol-blended gasoline, to push its price up above that of pure gas? Using food to make fuel is ultimately immoral, so why not tax that immorality? States already have heavy “sin taxes” on beverage alcohol and tobacco, despite the fact that it is mainly the consumers of which that suffer the most harm from their over-use. But you buy ethanol-blended motor fuel, you lose a little gas mileage, and take food out of the mouths of hungry children in the Third World.

    I’m all for that.


  56. lobo91
    56 | January 2, 2013 12:32 pm

    @ Mike C.:

    Not that I’m bad-mouthing bolt or lever action rifles, pump shotguns or revolvers, mind you. All demonstably lethal pieces of hardware. Own some myself.

    One thing that I’ve been mentioning to my classes lately is the fact that (at least for the moment) the ATF doesn’t regulate sales of black powder guns. They’re not considered firearms, surprisingly.

    I think an awful lot of people killed in the 18th and 19th centuries would disagree…


  57. 57 | January 2, 2013 12:37 pm

    @ lobo91:

    Hand-cranked Gatling guns are not NFA weapons, either. Wish somebody would make some at a reasonable cost. I mean, that Colt Navy Bullpup in brass is very nice, but who has that kind of coin? How about something simple, even in .22 LR or 9mm? Be cool as hell to take to the range, at least.


  58. lobo91
    58 | January 2, 2013 12:40 pm

    @ Mike C.:

    I’m not talking about regulation under the NFA, though. Black powder guns aren’t regulated at all. No background check. You can buy them by mail, even.

    It might be prudent to have one or two around, just in case.


  59. heysoos
    59 | January 2, 2013 12:40 pm

    Mike C. wrote:

    @ lobo91:
    Hand-cranked Gatling guns are not NFA weapons, either. Wish somebody would make some at a reasonable cost. I mean, that Colt Navy Bullpup in brass is very nice, but who has that kind of coin? How about something simple, even in .22 LR or 9mm? Be cool as hell to take to the range, at least.

    here’s one…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4i9_kkg30o


  60. 60 | January 2, 2013 12:41 pm

    @ Mike C.:

    Meanwhile, I see Midway USA has shipped my speed loaders. Alway have wanted to try those, and the HKS ones were on sale at a measely $ 7/each. Got a couple for each DA revolver. Hope the grips don’t interfere…


  61. eaglesoars
    61 | January 2, 2013 12:44 pm

    Alberta Oil Peon wrote:

    Why not put a special tax on ethanol-blended gasoline, to push its price up above that of pure gas?

    Hold on Sparky. NOTHING you’ve suggested taxing is isolated to use by ‘progessives’. As for corn-fed gas -- it’s almost impossible to find a gas station that sells anything else and it’s already more expensive. What you’re suggesting -- added tax burdens -- is precisely what will hurt red state economies.

    Now if you want to tax abortions that are not medically necessary…..


  62. 62 | January 2, 2013 12:44 pm

    @ heysoos:

    Now yer talkin… But I’m not a machinist, so I need to see one at the gun shop ready to go, for something less than the cost of a new Harley. A lot less…


  63. waldensianspirit
    63 | January 2, 2013 12:49 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    Now if you want to tax abortions that are not medically necessary…..

    Ann Dunham had a failed abortion which is debatable if it was medically necessary or not


  64. eaglesoars
    64 | January 2, 2013 12:50 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    CA working overtime to ruin their trucking business with more crushing regs…
    http://times247.com/articles/23calif-regulations-forcing-trucks-off-the-road9

    But the federal Environmental Protection Agency approved the California rules before the truckers got their day in court.

    You know who’s being considered to replace Lisa Jackson at EPA? The head of CARB.

    Where’s savage when you need him?


  65. lobo91
    65 | January 2, 2013 12:52 pm

    Mike C. wrote:

    @ Mike C.:

    Meanwhile, I see Midway USA has shipped my speed loaders. Alway have wanted to try those, and the HKS ones were on sale at a measely $ 7/each. Got a couple for each DA revolver. Hope the grips don’t interfere…

    Have you ever tried using speed strips?

    That’s what I use with my revolver. Not quite as fast as a speedloader, but they’re flat in your pocket. And cheap.


  66. The Osprey
    66 | January 2, 2013 12:53 pm

    Mike C. wrote:

    @ lobo91:

    Hand-cranked Gatling guns are not NFA weapons, either. Wish somebody would make some at a reasonable cost. I mean, that Colt Navy Bullpup in brass is very nice, but who has that kind of coin? How about something simple, even in .22 LR or 9mm? Be cool as hell to take to the range, at least.

    Have you got a pair of Ruger 10/22′s and $400?


  67. waldensianspirit
    67 | January 2, 2013 12:53 pm


    Iran to Citizens: Flee Isfahan
    Iranian officials tell citizens to vacate city located near nuke site

    :mrgreen:

    Can we send them some moonbats as replacement shields?


  68. lobo91
    68 | January 2, 2013 12:54 pm

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    eaglesoars wrote:

    Now if you want to tax abortions that are not medically necessary…..

    Ann Dunham had a failed abortion which is debatable if it was medically necessary or not

    Considering that the pro-abortion crowd considers the possibility that the woman might be depressed as indicating “medical necessity,” I think we could definitely make the case that aborting him would have been necessary to protect the life or health of the country.


  69. heysoos
    69 | January 2, 2013 12:55 pm

    Mike C. wrote:

    @ heysoos:
    Now yer talkin… But I’m not a machinist, so I need to see one at the gun shop ready to go, for something less than the cost of a new Harley. A lot less…

    look at this little sweetheart….
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abTGAP7tG0Y


  70. Da_Beerfreak
    70 | January 2, 2013 12:58 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    Now if you want to tax abortions that are not medically necessary…..

    Calculate the tax bill to be equal to what the aborted person would have paid in all taxes on average over the course of a typical lifetime. Let the IRS handle the details… :twisted:


  71. lobo91
    71 | January 2, 2013 12:59 pm

    This is interesting. Looks like someone turned one of the new Kel-Tec PMR-30 pistols into a SMG:

    Quickest way I’ve ever seen to vaporize 30 rounds of .22WMRF.


  72. 72 | January 2, 2013 1:03 pm

    @ lobo91:

    Nope, never tried speed strips, although I know what they are.


  73. 73 | January 2, 2013 1:03 pm

    @ lobo91:

    I’ve always said that it was a damned shame that Ann Dunham didn’t hae access to safe and legal abortion services. YOu’d think Obama might ask himself some hard questions about that, but he’s more interested in his daughters being able to abort his grandkids than he is the thought that his mother would have probably made a choice out of him if it had been available.


  74. 74 | January 2, 2013 1:05 pm

    @ The Osprey:

    Seen that before, but not quite what I’d like…


  75. 75 | January 2, 2013 1:07 pm

    @ heysoos:

    Neat, yes, but also a real Class III weapon, so forget about that. I’ve also seen video of a .22 LR Minigun, which was simply awesome. But we ain’t gonna get those, are we?


  76. lobo91
    76 | January 2, 2013 1:12 pm

    Mike C. wrote:

    @ lobo91:

    Nope, never tried speed strips, although I know what they are.

    I’ve been using them for a couple of years. It takes about 5 minutes of practice to get the hang of them. Not quite as fast as a speedloader, but more practical for most people, since they don’t make a big bulge in your pocket.


  77. Alberta Oil Peon
    77 | January 2, 2013 1:15 pm

    @ eaglesoars:
    Around here, in Alberta, the ethanol-blended crap is cheaper by about 40 cents per gallon.

    Look, I know none of the stuff I suggested taxing is used exclusively by Liberals/Leftards/Progressives, but they overwhelmingly constitute the class that benefits from the sale of those items. Nobody needs a TV; nobody needs to go to a crappy Hollywood picture.

    As far as ethanol fuel goes, the chief beneficiaries are Archer Daniels Midland, and the big corn farmers. Some of those farmers may indeed be Republicans, but if they are happy to accept higher prices that are supported by government meddling in support of a statist lie, Anthropogenic Global Warming, they are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Corporate welfare bums.

    Yeah, some of these proposed taxes may hurt us, a little. But they will hurt the Hollywood libs, and the lazy welfare queens who do nothing but watch TV, more.

    For us, a little pain, and a lot of gain.


  78. lobo91
    78 | January 2, 2013 1:21 pm

    @ Alberta Oil Peon:

    Around here, in Alberta, the ethanol-blended crap is cheaper by about 40 cents per gallon.

    With very few exceptions, we don’t get the choice here. 10% ethanol is mandatory in most of the US.


  79. eaglesoars
    79 | January 2, 2013 1:23 pm

    Alberta Oil Peon wrote:

    For us, a little pain, and a lot of gain.

    I disagree. What you’re suggesting hurts the economy of the state -- not just individual wallets. We might as well be blue states. That’s nonsensical.


  80. lobo91
    80 | January 2, 2013 1:27 pm

    I’m doing some year-end bookkeeping today. I just looked at how many students I’ve had since getting back from Kuwait in mid-August.

    August: 4
    September: 5
    October: 0
    November: 5
    December: 26

    And I have 16 scheduled for January so far.


  81. Da_Beerfreak
    81 | January 2, 2013 1:29 pm

    Just end the ethanol subsidies and let the market decide its fate.


  82. lobo91
    82 | January 2, 2013 1:33 pm

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    Just end the ethanol subsidies and let the market decide its fate.

    And eliminate the mandatory ethanol requirements.


  83. eaglesoars
    83 | January 2, 2013 1:33 pm

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    Just end the ethanol subsidies and let the market decide its fate.

    The subsidies have ended. It’s the MANDATES keeping this crap going.


  84. Da_Beerfreak
    84 | January 2, 2013 1:36 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    Just end the ethanol subsidies and let the market decide its fate.

    And eliminate the mandatory ethanol requirements.

    Of course. That’s just another subsidy.


  85. RIX
    85 | January 2, 2013 1:40 pm

    FNC had this story earlier, but I can’t find it anywhere.
    Apparently four convicted felons at least one a murderer
    filed their own complaint against several liquor companies.
    They state that they were never warned that liquor is addictive
    and it was their chemical dependency that caused them to
    commit their crimes.


  86. heysoos
    86 | January 2, 2013 1:42 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    Just end the ethanol subsidies and let the market decide its fate.

    And eliminate the mandatory ethanol requirements.

    one of the most stupid ideas ever….meanwhile hemp because of it’s cousin, cannabis, is a Schedule 1 dangerous drug….the feds are clueless idiots….ethanol is easily produced from hemp and FAR cheaper to grow


  87. Da_Beerfreak
    87 | January 2, 2013 1:46 pm

    RIX wrote:

    FNC had this story earlier, but I can’t find it anywhere.
    Apparently four convicted felons at least one a murderer
    filed their own complaint against several liquor companies.
    They state that they were never warned that liquor is addictive
    and it was their chemical dependency that caused them to
    commit their crimes.

    Sounds like something a couple of out of work anti tobacco lawyers would be pushing. Once they get your guns, they will be coming for your beer…


  88. lobo91
    88 | January 2, 2013 1:48 pm

    @ RIX:

    Waste of paper. It’ll go nowhere. I think it’s pretty well established that alcohol is addictive, and what its effects are.


  89. lobo91
    89 | January 2, 2013 1:49 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    Sounds like something a couple of out of work anti tobacco lawyers would be pushing.

    No lawyers are involved. This is some inmates who embarked on a creative writing project to kill time while in prison.


  90. RIX
    90 | January 2, 2013 1:50 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ RIX:

    Waste of paper. It’ll go nowhere. I think it’s pretty well established that alcohol is addictive, and what its effects are.

    Yeah, it won’t go anywhere, but they have time on their
    hands & use of the prison law library.


  91. RIX
    91 | January 2, 2013 1:53 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    Sounds like something a couple of out of work anti tobacco lawyers would be pushing. Once they get your guns, they will be coming for your beer…

    Theses are actually four jailed felons.
    It is pretty creative, but doomed to fail.
    Maybe they should allege that a 32 ounce slurppy
    made them do it. They could get Bloomberg to file
    an amicus brief.


  92. lobo91
    92 | January 2, 2013 1:53 pm

    @ RIX:

    Reminds me of a story I saw one time about lawsuits filed by prisoners in Nevada. It’s apparently a hobby for some of them.

    One guy sued over only being offered creamy peanut butter at lunch, while he wanted crunchy. Another sued over broken cookies.


  93. 93 | January 2, 2013 1:55 pm

    @ heysoos:

    Dorian is a huge supporter of Hemp! :evil:


  94. eaglesoars
    94 | January 2, 2013 2:01 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ heysoos:

    Dorian is a huge supporter of Hemp!

    Several years ago hemp producers wanted to hire Hubby as their lobbyist. I wanted him to take it but he said the education required to get people to understand that it’s not drug related would be so onerous it would hurt existing clients.


  95. heysoos
    95 | January 2, 2013 2:06 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    Rodan wrote:

    @ heysoos:
    Dorian is a huge supporter of Hemp!
    Several years ago hemp producers wanted to hire Hubby as their lobbyist. I wanted him to take it but he said the education required to get people to understand that it’s not drug related would be so onerous it would hurt existing clients.

    now even pot is legal in several states, while hemp is not…raging stupidity and nobody seems interested in rectifying this paradox


  96. eaglesoars
    97 | January 2, 2013 2:08 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    raging stupidity and nobody seems interested in rectifying

    have you noticed that the ban on incandescent light bulbs hasn’t been rescinded -- and Fred Upton promised it would be?


  97. heysoos
    98 | January 2, 2013 2:09 pm

    @ Mike C.:
    read that…after you posted about shotguns and revolvers I snooped around and you’re right…ordinary 12 and 20 guns are hard to find


  98. darkwords
    99 | January 2, 2013 2:11 pm

    @ 80 lobo91: That is good. Tell them how important it is to tell other people about gun safety.


  99. heysoos
    100 | January 2, 2013 2:13 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    heysoos wrote:
    raging stupidity and nobody seems interested in rectifying
    have you noticed that the ban on incandescent light bulbs hasn’t been rescinded — and Fred Upton promised it would be?

    not sure about Fred, he’s certainly not a ‘common man’ being heir to the Whirlpool fortune…who moved so much manufacturing overseas


  100. Alberta Oil Peon
    101 | January 2, 2013 2:18 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    Alberta Oil Peon wrote:
    For us, a little pain, and a lot of gain.
    I disagree. What you’re suggesting hurts the economy of the state — not just individual wallets. We might as well be blue states. That’s nonsensical.

    I don’t see where you get that notion. 1. State gets revenue from new taxes. 2. The bulk of the revenue comes from taxpayers on the Left. 3. The new State taxes act to offset some of the negative effects of the ill-conceived Federal programs.

    Last I heard, ethanol-free gas is still available in most States. Maybe not some of the corn belt States or California. But, see, I’m talking about States applying a sin tax on gasohol to offset the lower Federal taxes on gasohol that make it cheaper than pure gasoline. So it wouldn’t hurt you or me at all. Who wants to put that monkey piss in their tank, if an alternative exists?

    And as far as TV’s and movies go. Watch less of them. Cut your tax bill, starve the Hollywood Left, and avoid immersing yourself in a sea of stupid. Win, win, win.


  101. lobo91
    102 | January 2, 2013 2:21 pm

    @ Alberta Oil Peon:

    Last I heard, ethanol-free gas is still available in most States. Maybe not some of the corn belt States or California.

    It’s mandatory in quite a few states, at least part of the year. In NM and CO, it’s required by the EPA in the winter, for example.


  102. eaglesoars
    103 | January 2, 2013 2:41 pm

    Alberta Oil Peon wrote:

    2. The bulk of the revenue comes from taxpayers on the Left.

    Everybody with a car/vehicle has to fill up. Increase the gas tax and you increase the cost of things like FOOD. Everybody has to eat.

    Last I heard, ethanol-free gas is still available in most States

    Available yes. How far do you want me to drive round trip to find an ethanol-free station? 50 miles? 100?


  103. lobo91
    104 | January 2, 2013 2:46 pm

    Well, I’m done with my books.

    Seeing what I actually made, it’s pretty depressing.


  104. heysoos
    105 | January 2, 2013 2:47 pm

    medical pot, in full view of the Capitol in DC….bwahaha…in violation of federal law!…good grief…why in the hell don’t the feds fix this stupid ‘problem’
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/medical-marijuana-dispensary-prepares-to-open-in-dc/2012/12/31/8829ff44-5111-11e2-8b49-64675006147f_allComments.html?ctab=all_&


  105. 106 | January 2, 2013 3:10 pm

    @ heysoos:

    In other words, the Feds should get out of this.


  106. lobo91
    107 | January 2, 2013 3:13 pm

    Hmm…it looks like I’m netting about $45 a head, all things considered.

    Bleh…


  107. 108 | January 2, 2013 3:15 pm

    @ lobo91:

    Doesn’t sound like you are making minimum wage. You should file a labor complaint against yourself…


  108. RIX
    109 | January 2, 2013 3:15 pm

    @ lobo91:

    Cons hav a lot of time on their hands, so law suits don’t surprise me.


  109. lobo91
    110 | January 2, 2013 3:28 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ lobo91:

    Doesn’t sound like you are making minimum wage. You should file a labor complaint against yourself…

    maybe I can claim to be disabled…
    //


  110. lobo91
    111 | January 2, 2013 3:30 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    If i could maintain a level of 4 students per day, 6 days a week, I’d do okay.


  111. Alberta Oil Peon
    112 | January 2, 2013 5:04 pm

    @ eaglesoars:
    Well, Hell, the first thing that would happen is consumers would demand more ethanol free gas, and service stations would scramble to bring it in.

    The whole point of the exercise is throw a fuck into the left and the Obungle-Feds. Sure it’s going to cost you a bit. But it will be worth it.

    Just listening to the whines of the greentards who want ethanol-based gas would be music to my ears.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David