millwood said:
Excuse me, but even a quick look at the facts proves I am correct about Disney having sweetheart deals with the Florida government, headed by Jeb Bush.
From the Miami Herald:
"While Disney benefits from tax breaks that apply to businesses and certain industries such as movie production, it enjoys probably the biggest perk of all in Florida -- the company runs its own government.
In 1967, the state Legislature created the Reedy Creek Improvement District, which allowed the development of Walt Disney World without oversight from local and state officials. The Reedy Creek district operates like a municipal government, setting its own rules for planning, zoning and building. It can even issue its own tax-free municipal bonds."
Nice deal. Disney gets to run Disney World as if it is a world unto itself, without having to worry about answering to the same state bodies and standards that everyone else does. And while Jeb Bush was not in office when the deal was made, it strongly is in Disney's interest to make sure the Governor or Republican controlled legislature doesn't start pressuring them to change anything.
The Herald continues....
"...Having such total control over its operations [in Florida], Disney can fast-track the development of its parks and resort, which provides the company a huge saving of time and money, Foglesong said. That's a privilege that no other real estate development in the state enjoys."
I would think not.
Such lovely arrangements Disney has with Jeb Bush's Florida state government. But of course, it is pure coincidence that Disney just can't bring itself to distribute Michael Moore's documentary critical of the Florida Governor's brother-even though Moore's last film, box-office wise, was the most successful documentary in history. 🙂
http://www.mickeynews.com/News/DisplayPressRelease.asp_Q_id_E_584Shy
I gotta jump in here and insert some logic. I keep hearing about these sweet heart deals between gov Bush and Disney but even in the article linked to as proof The miami herald admidts that Disndy gets the same tax breaks as every other company in Florida and that this special self goverment deal dates back to 1967. Furthermore gov Bush dosnt't have the power or athority to change either of these deals without legislative aproval. Also, While Disney is a big political contributer they contribute to both Democrat and Republican parties. Have you ever thought that maybe Disney is woried about the people they actually answer to, their customers? Seing as our country seems pretty evenly divided at least half of disneys customers could be offended by the movie. I don't see how it could be in their best interest as a bussiness to distribute it. ...I know it would end my patronige of disney productions and products. think about it
jp88 said:
we would just deem that such sweetheart deals exist between the Bushes and the big corporations, and the big corporations are doing all they can to help the bushes, 🙂.
to hell with data, facts, logic and reasoning, especially when they don't support the conclusion some of us wanted, 🙂
jp88 said:
There are several deals Disney has with Florida, some of which apply to other firms in the same industry, some of which are special breaks to Disney.
The breaks for movie companies apply to other movie makers besides Disney. But movies and entertainment are Disney's major product. They benefit tremendously from those breaks. If I am looking to do business in a state, I would be very delighted if that state said, "We won't give your facility an exclusive tax break, but we will give a tax break to all companies in your industry who do business here". That would be enough to influence me to go ahead and set up a facility-and it would be in my interest to preserve that tax break and make sure the state doesn't change it's mind or hit me and other movie companies with a different tax to make up for the tax break it gave us.
In other words, I don't want the state government-or governor-mad at me. He might decide to take a look at some of the breaks the state is giving my industry.
Bush is Republican, and the leader of his party nationally. Bush's brother, the governor, is Republican and is the leader of his statewide. The Florida legislature is majority Republican, who are led by the state's governor, who is the president's brother.
Figure it out and get back to me. 😉
How often do consumer boycotts ever work? Remember the boycott of Florida orange juice because they bought time on Rush Limbaugh's show? That one struck me as rather silly, by the way. And then there was the highly publicized, much discussed boycott of Married With Children when it first came out. That show ended up being a major hit for what-ten years, and pretty much put the then-new Fox Network on the map.
However, you are neglecting the big, major break Florida gives Disney-the creation of a separate business zone just for Disney World, where they don't have to deal with the state on anything involving expansion, etc. That break is exclusive to Disney-and there isn't a developer in the country who doesn't fervently wish he could get the same deal. It is a tremendous business advantage-and it is very much in Disney's interest to keep it.
kelticwizard said:
It works both ways though: there isn't a state in the union that wouldn't want Disney pouring money into its economy. If Florida doesn't want their business, there are plenty of other governors that would be happy to give them whatever they want. No matter how irritated he gets at a movie, I really can't imagine Jeb Bush doing anything to jeopardize Florida's relationship with Disney. And when you add to that the fact governors don't usually even have the authority to change those kinds of deals, the whole thing seems pretty far fetched.
....bottom line...the sooner you folks get short of the Bushit...Wolfoshit clique, the better.......
kelticwizard said:
and I am sure those "fervent" developers can also bring to the state what Disney does, 🙂
you don't need to look to Disney or Florida to see special deals municipals give to businesses in order to create jobs. and every one of us benefits and pays for such breaks. if you think we shouldn't be giving businesses those deals, look at your own employer and ask what tax breaks they are getting. and quiet your job if you find that objectionable, 🙂.
You wouldn't, I bet you. And then why should the state of florida be held to a different standard?
Rob M said:
millwood said:
Of course Florida gave Disney these breaks in an effort to lure them down to Florida and contribute to the economy. When did I say that was not the motivation for these deals?
Although I must say, that bit about making Disney World virtually a state unto itself with it's own government and virtual exemption from state permits and building procedures really is quite unique-up until now, I never heard of states going that far.
But you guys just fail to see the other side of the coin-now that those deals were offered, Disney went ahead and invested hundreds of millions-if not billions by now-into Florida. And an investment like that is always very far reaching and has many parts-it isn't like Disney just says to Florida, "Thanks for the tax breaks on movie filming, thanks for letting Disney World be a whole world unto itself, now we'll see you state guys in fifty years".
No, sir. When you are that big, you have an ongoing relationship with the state government in terms of building permits, state approval for projects outside Disney World, and on and on. Not to mention the fact that while Florida might not be able to undo the Disney World "world unto itself" deal, there are additional taxes and permits that can be enacted to make life harder for Disney than it is now.
Rob M said:
So why can you imagine that Disney would do anything to jeopardize their relationship with Florida and Governor Jeb Bush? Sure Florida gets jobs, tourism and other stimuli to the economy out of this deal. But don't forget that Disney has sunk probably billions of dollars into Florida over the span of over thirty years.
Nobody is saying that Jeb Bush and the Republican majority Florida Legislature is going to pronounce Disney personna non grata and tell them to vacate the state becasue of Fahrenheit 911. But they can "re-examine their relationship" to Disney, and make things a little harder for them to do, put on a couple of new taxes, etc which will translate into less profit for Disney. Not nearly enough for Disney to consider a move, you understand, which would be a tremendously expensive undertaking. But enough to make them reconsider the release date of Fahrenheit 911.
I would strongly disagree.Rob M said:
Nobody knows how big an effect Fahrenheit 451 can have on the election. Since it is widely publicized as not showing Bush in good light, and it's maker, Michael Moore makes no secret of his anti-Bush stance, it could be that the only people who show up to see the movie are against Bush already, with a consequent loss of votes to Bush of almost zero.
On the other hand, if people find the film well made and entertaining, then those who are undecided in their vote might see it and get swayed by it's message. Since this is shaping up as a close race, it is very easy to see that this movie, if it catches on, could be the difference in the election. American elections are decided by the 20% of people in the middle. If the movie and it's aftereffects can shift the percentages from 49% of the middle-of-the-roaders against Bush to 51% of the middle-of-the-roaders against Bush, there could be your election right there.
Don't think, even for a second, that Jeb Bush is not taking the second possibility seriously.
There is a rule in politics that if you plan to be effective, you have to be able to make your political opponents pay a price if they cross you. As President Kennedy's father once said, "Don't get mad. Get even." The potential effects of this film on the election ranges from nil to enormous. Releasing a movie before the election with a potentially devastating impact on the governor's brother would indeed invite retaliation on that governor's part, of the sort that is hidden away from the public eye. Little things and additional taxes and permit requirements that you cannot prove is aimed at Disney, but which have the effect of costing the company millions of dollars over time.
No, but the Legislature and Governor can enact new taxes, permits, etc which makes Disney's operation in Florida slightly less profitable, although not nearly enough to drive Disney away from the state. Don't forget that the Republican majority Legislature will not just be doing this as a favor for their Governor-they want to see Bush get elected too, and are unlikely to be very thrilled if Disney releases the movie before the election.
Of course, all this is probably moot now. With all the hollering Michael Moore did about Disney not releasing the movie, Disney just had to find a distributor to release it this summer. And they did-it will be out in a few days.
So I guess we will never find out if Disney was going to delay finalizing the deal with a distributor until after the election due to fear of retaliation from Jeb Bush and the Republican Florida Legislature. Who knows, maybe Jeb Bush and the Republican majority in the Florida Legislature might have proven to be fine, upstanding fellows who would have said, "Who cares if Disney releases that crackpot movie by that silly Michael Moore before the election. Disney is good for the state, it's freedom of speech, so we aren't going to do anything".
That nasty, nasty, Micael Moore. He doesn't sit back and see if his movie gets messed over-he just screams and hollers to make sure it doesn't. 🙂
So I guess we will never find out if Disney was going to delay finalizing the deal with a distributor until after the election due to fear of retaliation from Jeb Bush and the Republican Florida Legislature. Who knows, maybe Jeb Bush and the Republican majority in the Florida Legislature might have proven to be fine, upstanding fellows who would have said, "Who cares if Disney releases that crackpot movie by that silly Michael Moore before the election. Disney is good for the state, it's freedom of speech, so we aren't going to do anything".
That nasty, nasty, Micael Moore. He doesn't sit back and see if his movie gets messed over-he just screams and hollers to make sure it doesn't. 🙂
we don't really care what the bushes and the republicans do with regards to the movie.
As far as we are concerned, they did all they could, short of burning Moore, in preventing the movie from coming to a movie theater near you.
Facts are irrevelevant, 🙂, especially when those facts aren't consistent with our conclusions.
🙂
As far as we are concerned, they did all they could, short of burning Moore, in preventing the movie from coming to a movie theater near you.
Facts are irrevelevant, 🙂, especially when those facts aren't consistent with our conclusions.
🙂
All I can say is, if I were Jeb Bush, for the sake of my brother I wouldn't want this movie to come out before the election. After the election, I probably wouldn't mind nearly as much.
Before Moore started making noise, Disney was talking about finding a distributor for the flick, somewhere, to possibly appear in the theaters at some unspecified time. Which might well have been after the November elections.
After Michael Moore made some noise, within a couple of weeks Disney finds a distributor who has it hitting the theatres in less than a month.
Who knows, maybe it was going to happen that way anyway. Maybe not. Guess we'll never know.
It's all right. I'm sure Mr Moore found the exercise beneficial anyway. 🙂
Before Moore started making noise, Disney was talking about finding a distributor for the flick, somewhere, to possibly appear in the theaters at some unspecified time. Which might well have been after the November elections.
After Michael Moore made some noise, within a couple of weeks Disney finds a distributor who has it hitting the theatres in less than a month.
Who knows, maybe it was going to happen that way anyway. Maybe not. Guess we'll never know.
It's all right. I'm sure Mr Moore found the exercise beneficial anyway. 🙂
Re: Michael Moore ...
hahaha
Ok so who still supports bush? Where are all those smart ***** from a year ago who I debated with who MUST still believe there are wmd in iraq, that saddam was an imminent threat, and all that other bs?
Sigh... patriotism I SALUTE YOU!
mirlo said:
hahaha
Ok so who still supports bush? Where are all those smart ***** from a year ago who I debated with who MUST still believe there are wmd in iraq, that saddam was an imminent threat, and all that other bs?
Sigh... patriotism I SALUTE YOU!
Historical quotes
http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_history.html
Several quotes can be applied to this farce... and I've never quoted Carl Marx before!
http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_history.html
Several quotes can be applied to this farce... and I've never quoted Carl Marx before!
Re: Re: Michael Moore ...
I do! I do! I do!
I didn't believe there were wmds, nor saddam was an imminent threat. But I believed it was a just cause and for the goodness of the people in iraq. and at the sam etime I am a supporter of pre-emptive strikes (thus no smoking gun).
I also thought the post-war planning was bad, and the political "orientation" was naive.
and I think the same goal could have been achieved at much lower costs - human and monetary.
But I support the war as I support those who gave their lives to depend our country and freedom and help the people of Iraq.
gigatron said:
I do! I do! I do!
I didn't believe there were wmds, nor saddam was an imminent threat. But I believed it was a just cause and for the goodness of the people in iraq. and at the sam etime I am a supporter of pre-emptive strikes (thus no smoking gun).
I also thought the post-war planning was bad, and the political "orientation" was naive.
and I think the same goal could have been achieved at much lower costs - human and monetary.
But I support the war as I support those who gave their lives to depend our country and freedom and help the people of Iraq.
Hans L said:
It was true, sort of, in the early 90's:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/arms/
But it's not true by a long shot any more:
http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/655-2002/6552002.html#DCS
In 2002, sales to Japan (the #1 customer) were more than 30 times greater than sales to Saudi Arabia.
More on the world arms trade:
http://www.nisat.org/Export_Reports/Links to annual reports.htm
Saudi Arabia actually is the UK's best customer, and they've also been very good to the French and Dutch arms industries.
http://www.nisat.org/Export_Reports/Links to annual reports.htm
Saudi Arabia actually is the UK's best customer, and they've also been very good to the French and Dutch arms industries.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.