McCain bad for Broadway??

[CateBroadway]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 10:23am

Sorry, the fact that the "obama bad for broadway" thread is getting that much attention is embarrassing. Since when did the Republican party go out of their way to support the arts? Instead of being so worried that people making over $200,000 a year (a small and quite frankly, conservative demographic) might abandon a couple show going opportunities, I'm thrilled that under Obama's tax plan, 90% of American families would finally feel the relief and now have a few extra dollars at the end of the week to actually consider treating their families to the luxury of Broadway theatre.

The idea that a new demographic of people as massive and influential as the middle class might finally find it in their budgets to see live theatre would not only usher in a huge new consumer group, but it could also make for a monumental and exciting shift in what is being produced on Broadway. So much of a producers job is trying to cater to the elitist theatre goers and investors. Imagine what kind of exciting projects will get produced if the target audience is finally the American public as a mass rather than the stuffy, prudish upper-crest.

And I'm sorry, the allegation that made me the most angry is the fact that Bill Clinton killed 90's Broadway. Clinton did more for nonprofit theatre and arts in schools than any president in the last 50 years. Also, if we're really going to point fingers, let's remember back in the early 2000's when Bill Clinton on multiple occasions tried to request a $150 million support system for the National Endowment for the Arts only to be shut down time and again by the conservative majority congress.

Obama's tax plan might raise taxes on a few but will provide relief and opportunity to millions. And at the end of the day, tax cuts and breaks aren't going to be the main catalyst of what will rescue Broadway out from this recession. What will save our beloved industry is going to be an upward movement of the economy as a whole. We've seen what the economy can do under the leadership of a Republican leader and we've also seen that John McCain has aligned his position with that of his party 90% of the time. Do we really want to take a 10% chance on John McCain being able to rescue us out of our situation? Stop reading this thread and go out and vote :)


Updated On: 11/4/08 at 10:23 AM

[Dancin Thru Life]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 10:28am

Oh brother.....

[Liza + Jesus = Patti]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 10:28am

ohh dear God.

it's going to be a long day...

[LotteTBS138]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 10:33am

I'd rather watch Romantic Poetry...

[jessemurphyman]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 10:35am

"ohh dear God.

it's going to be a long day... "

Yeah it is, but honestly, what more important is happening today on Broadway than this. I'm so glad I have a forum of people with whom I share a similar love to be able to talk about matters of this importance.

[broadwayjim42]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 10:45am

Yes, McCain is bad for Broadway.

He has no stage presence and allows looks ill-at-ease.

[bonbon]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 11:27am

Am I the only one who remembers when the Republicans had their national convention in NYC? They had their "approved shows" list, and yet almost ALL Broadway grossed were down that week?... Just saying...

[sondheimgeek]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 2:06pm

Umm...nice argument. I really enjoyed it.

BUT...

Bush didn't single handedly ruin the economy. Bush didn't start the war just to ruin America. Contrary to popular belief, Bush did not run for office to destroy the lives of every American. He made some mistakes. So does every president. The problem is people believe what they want to believe. The president doesn't control the economy, congress does. Congress passed Fannie Mae and both Bush and McCain said we needed to reform it YEARS ago. If we had we may not be in the position we are in now. In fact, just a few weeks before the economic crash Barney Frank (a Democrat) said that Fannie Mae was doing great and that we should keep investing.

We don't get to hear what the democrats have done wrong from the media.

Obama's intentions, while great, will probably not work. Universal health care? Great! Will it work? No. We'll have to wait for months to get small things like an MRI.

Redistribution of the wealth? Great! But who does it affect? The rich. Why should the rich have to pay a higher rate than others? An example of redistribution is if a student recieves an A in a class and several other students recieve D's, the person who has an A will have their A taken away from them and be brought down to a C, and the students who have failing grades will be brought up to C's with the person's A. How is that fair?

The rich create jobs, and taxing them more will mean less jobs. If I were rich and a small business owner, and I were taxed more, than I would be less inclined to hire someone new. In fact because I wouldn't have as much money I would probably fire a worker I already have and I'd have to work more hours. Not because I want to fire someone. I want people to keep their jobs. However, I would still need to keep the same amount of money I normally would have, and sadly that means that I couldn't create a new job, nor could I allow someone else to keep theirs.

Obama wants change. So what? Every president wants change. But I'm not going to let my emotions beat out logic. That's the problem. Liberal extremeists vote based on their emotions. But sometimes emotions won't solve everything.

Now I am not rich, and I'm not a republican. I am an independent. And while I feel Obama has good intentions, I don't feel his policies will work. McCain isn't the worlds savior. Neither is Obama. I however feel that McCain is the lesser of two evils.

So to the original poster, you started this thread to stir up some controversy. Congratulations.

Updated On: 11/4/08 at 02:06 PM

[Liza + Jesus = Patti]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 2:21pm

I don't like either of those idiots.

McCain is... McCain.

and Obama is all words and hype.

they both put me to sleep.

[sondheimgeek]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 2:23pm

I have to agree with you 'Liza + Jesus = Patti'.

Updated On: 11/4/08 at 02:23 PM

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 2:45pm

I agree, as well.

And, well said, sondheimgeek, though I don't like redistribution of the wealth, period.

There are also a few aspects to Obama's tax plan that people aren't considering, but I don't want to get into that here.

Updated On: 11/4/08 at 02:45 PM

[sondheimgeek]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 2:58pm

Aw thanks.

I don't like redistribution of the wealth either.

Plus if the government is giving you money than why would you be more inclined to get a job? If I'm getting money that I don't have to work for I'm certainly not going to get a better job or work harder because than I'd lose the labor-less money I'm getting from them.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 4:14pm

Universal health care? Great! Will it work? No. We'll have to wait for months to get small things like an MRI.

Or maybe we won't.

Redistribution of the wealth? Great! But who does it affect? The rich. Why should the rich have to pay a higher rate than others? An example of redistribution is if a student recieves an A in a class and several other students recieve D's, the person who has an A will have their A taken away from them and be brought down to a C, and the students who have failing grades will be brought up to C's with the person's A. How is that fair?

It's called grading on a curve and it's how my entire class passed Finite Mathematics and Applications in college scheduled at 7 am. Besides, it's not bringing an A down to a C. It's more like bringing an A+ down to a A or an A- down to a B and changing the person who has a D to a C-. Just be glad he's not a teacher who starts the semester saying, "I will give out two As, four Bs, five Cs and the rest of the class will fail." But it's not as if grades are even remotely comparable to incomes.

The rich create jobs, and taxing them more will mean less jobs.

Really? Which ones? At my old company, the rich kept their jobs while the people with lower salaries were laid off. Three times in the last year. The rich got huge bonuses plus stock options. Lower management and unexempt employees got a maximum of 3%. The rich got $5000 flights to Europe plus $500/night at hotels. Their assistants have to share a printer (about 20 to each printer) and are only allowed to print a color document with approval. The rich were not creating jobs. They were just getting paid 10x more to keep theirs. I honestly do not believe additional unemployment would specifically be caused by raising their taxes. The employees are not being paid from their private bank accounts. They are being paid by the revenue generated from the company. If you're a small business owner and you are in the tax bracket that would see an increase in taxes in Obama's plan and still have issues meeting your payroll budget, then the problem could be in your business model.

Liberal extremeists vote based on their emotions.

And Conservative extremists vote based on their religion. What about the non-extremists? What do all of them do?

Now I am not rich, and I'm not a republican. I am an independant.

Yeah, I told people I was an "independent" when I was in college. It sounds more cool and enigmatic. Like Morrissey.

Updated On: 11/4/08 at 04:14 PM

[theminutepast]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 4:16pm

sondheimgeek, are you serious? It's people like you that make American intolerable to live in. Have you ever read anything about universal health care other than Republican talking points? Countries that have some form of universalized health care have better, more efficient systems than we do.

Progressive taxes just make sense. While most Americans are struggling just to keep up with food prices, Americans like Paris Hilton are off buying another car, another pair of $500 shoes, and the like. So, yes, the rich can afford to pay more so we can live in a society where we treat our citizens like human beings.

[theminutepast]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 4:19pm

Mister Matt, thank you for that very reasoned response.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 4:27pm

Obama's tax would be ON the small business' revenue. But like I said, I don't trust his supposed tax plan. There's no way the rich alone can pay for the costs of the programs Obama plans to instate.

Republican talking points like what? Waiting lists? Poor facilities? Because I assure you that those are real.

The rich can afford it, but why should they have to? It's their money. And instead of continually raising taxes for the rich, politicians should be working on ways to close loopholes that the rich use to get out of paying those taxes. But they won't because that's how they get out of it, too.

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 4:37pm

Oh, I don't belive for one second that Paris Hilton spends $500.00 on shoes. I'm sure she would shun a pair that was less than $5,000 and those would just be her comfies when she thinks no one is looking at her. Come on, give that role model a break -- she's such a worthy individual who has contributed SO MUCH to society.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 5:01pm

Republican talking points like what? Waiting lists? Poor facilities? Because I assure you that those are real.

And I assure you that it is not true for all countries with universal health care. Try personally talking to people who actually live with it.

Sarah Palin quote:

"But when you talk about Barack's plan to tax increase affecting only those making $250,000 a year or more, you're forgetting millions of small businesses that are going to fit into that category. So they're going to be the ones paying higher taxes thus resulting in fewer jobs being created and less productivity."

Sound familiar?

CNN Money Fact Check:

If a business owner falls into the top bracket, that doesn't mean that all of his or her income is taxed at the highest level.

For example: If a small-business owner makes $210,000 in taxable income, he edges into the 33% bracket, one of the two top tax rates that Obama would like to raise.

But he would pay the higher tax only on the amount that exceeds the cutoff - in 2007, the two top tax rates applied to single filers with income of $160,850 or more and joint filers with income of at least $195,850. As a single filer, this business owner would see his federal taxes increase $1,475 under Obama's plan, which calls for raising the 33% tax rate to 36%.

"While Obama does favor raising the top two rates, the quote is not true because not all the small business income of those in the top two rates is taxed at the 33% and 35% rates," said Gerald Prante, a senior economist at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.

The bottom line: McCain's claim only works by using an overly broad definition of what counts as a "small business" - and even with that definition, fewer than 2% of business owners would be hit by Obama's proposed rate increase. For those who are affected, the increase would be levied only on a part of their earnings, not all of them.

Updated On: 11/4/08 at 05:01 PM

[sondheimgeek]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 5:33pm

It's called grading on a curve and it's how my entire class passed Finite Mathematics and Applications in college scheduled at 7 am. Besides, it's not bringing an A down to a C. It's more like bringing an A+ down to a A or an A- down to a B and changing the person who has a D to a C-.

Well, if your grade is an 'A', but a 90% and they take away 1%, then you have an 89% which is a 'B'.

But it's not as if grades are even remotely comparable to incomes.

You're right. Taking away from an income is worse.

Really? Which ones? At my old company, the rich kept their jobs while the people with lower salaries were laid off. Three times in the last year. The rich got huge bonuses plus stock options.

You're right. But either way it means less jobs. And the rich aren't all bad. Some of them actually do care. I've heard they have hearts too.

If you're a small business owner and you are in the tax bracket that would see an increase in taxes in Obama's plan and still have issues meeting your payroll budget, then the problem could be in your business model.

No...you could be making $250,000 a year, have 3 kids in college, one member of your family in the hospital, and live in New York. That's not a business model, that's real life.

And Conservative extremists vote based on their religion. What about the non-extremists? What do all of them do?

They live their lives and try to get by. My point wasn't about the non-extremists, it was about the extremists.

Yeah, I told people I was an "independent" when I was in college. It sounds more cool and enigmatic. Like Morrissey.

Great for you. You were just trying to make yourself look cooler. Maybe some people actually share an equal amount of democratic and conservative views so they don't want to classify themselves as either? Just because it doesn't work for you doesn't mean it doesn't work for someone else.

sondheimgeek, are you serious? It's people like you that make American intolerable to live in.

Ok, then get out. You mean someone who cares about others, but happens to believe that Obama isn't our saviour, is intolerable? No, I view the world realistically. Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they should support the rest of America. They have problems too. If a small business owner is taxed more they may not be able to support themselves. Should they have to uproot their life because the government feels they owe it to society? But again, I'm intolerable for understanding that the rich won't solve everything.

Who are the ones hit the hardest by job losses? The poor. Not all small business owners are monsters who only care about themselves. They do care about each other. But the more they are taxed, the less they can give to charity.

It's people like you theminutepast who make me question America. I would never say you are intolerable. I don't know you.

I will support whichever candidate is elected into office. I'm not going to move to another country just because I don't agree with a candidate.

America isn't intolerable to live in. It's only the people who believe they are better than others that think so.

Updated On: 11/4/08 at 05:33 PM

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 5:41pm

First off, talking to people who have free healthcare is not a good approach to gauge its effectiveness and quality. Small sample size, there.

Second off, I have talked to people in countries with universal healthcare. Some people hate it, and some love it, which leads to my first point.

Updated On: 11/4/08 at 05:41 PM

[sondheimgeek]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 5:50pm

Have you ever read anything about universal health care other than Republican talking points?

Actually, yes. Surprising as it is my social views are liberal. I actually listen to both parties' arguments. I have read about universal healthcare and I still do not agree with it.

I think everyone should be able to have it. But, if everyone has it, everyone will be going to the hospitals more often. If I need a catscan and I call my doctor, they'll ask when can I come in? But if we have universal healthcare there could be 300 other people who are getting catscans, and the next available date could be after four months? By that time I could have died.

While most Americans are struggling just to keep up with food prices, Americans like Paris Hilton are off buying another car, another pair of $500 shoes, and the like.

You're right. It's not fair. Life isn't fair. But just because the rich have more doesn't mean it belongs to us. It's their choice on how to spend it, and it belongs to them.

And the rich also spend money creating new companies, investing in old ones, donating money to charity, etc. But the less they have, the less they'll give.

So, yes, the rich can afford to pay more so we can live in a society where we treat our citizens like human beings.

No, the rich shouldn't have to pay for your life. They work hard for their money. I'm sure you work hard too. But you're not paying more even though you may work just as hard as they do. Do you know the old saying "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."?

[Insider2]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 5:54pm

McCain is bad for EVERYTHING.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 5:58pm

I think he would be great as either the Phantom or Billy Elliott

[TheaterBaby]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 6:05pm

When is the last we as a country have ever been 100% happy with our Government? Honestly?

Regardless of who wins, we're screwed and we still need to support the office.
As mentioned in the other thread, I voted for McCain today.
I will, however, support Obama and his office should he win.

People just love to be so negative.

I have family members voting for third party candidates today just because they really really don't like either main party candidate.

[Insider2]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 6:06pm

Now that I think of it, Republicans are good for one thing on Broadway - fiddling while Rome burns. I don't know if anyone remembers the story of how literally right after Hurricane Katrina struck, Condoleezza Rice thought she would be best serving her country by taking in a performance of Spamalot as the Gulf Coast laid in tatters. The audience booed her when the lights came up.