Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/news/report ... 44837.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you watch even a tiny amount of television in the next 18 months, there's a good chance you'll see an ad attacking "Obamacare."

According to Kantar Media's Campaign Media Analysis Group, more than $500 million has been spent on advertising surrounding the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) with $500 million more expected by early 2015.




1 billion dollars on advertising. Seems like a logical choice for a money pit.

Glad to see that politicians still know how to keep its priorities in order.

Don't fix a problem when you can spend (and earn) millions to talk about fixing a problem.

I think I will open an ad agency.

AZGrizFan wrote:I think I will open an ad agency.

That would mean you'd actually have to work hard. Are you capable of doing that?

I never understand why people decry other people spending money on advertising. It's not like the money is being burned and goes away - it's a perfectly acceptable transfer of money from one person to another for a service that ends up helping the economy in the grand scheme of things. Why do people hate free speech and expression so much?

GannonFan wrote:I never understand why people decry other people spending money on advertising. It's not like the money is being burned and goes away - it's a perfectly acceptable transfer of money from one person to another for a service that ends up helping the economy in the grand scheme of things. Why do people hate free speech and expression so much?

Money can limit free speech. Why do you hate ideas so much?

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:I never understand why people decry other people spending money on advertising. It's not like the money is being burned and goes away - it's a perfectly acceptable transfer of money from one person to another for a service that ends up helping the economy in the grand scheme of things. Why do people hate free speech and expression so much?

Money can limit free speech. Why do you hate ideas so much?

Tell me how money limits my free speech. I'm waiting.

D1B wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:I think I will open an ad agency.

That would mean you'd actually have to work hard. Are you capable of doing that?

I said I'd OPEN the agency, I didn't say I'd actually work there.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:I never understand why people decry other people spending money on advertising. It's not like the money is being burned and goes away - it's a perfectly acceptable transfer of money from one person to another for a service that ends up helping the economy in the grand scheme of things. Why do people hate free speech and expression so much?

Money can limit free speech. Why do you hate ideas so much?

Spending money on advertising is an expression of free speech. I think your problem is that this gives people/groups with money an increased ability to express their opinions compared to those with less or no money. If we want to argue the merits, let's do it based on reality and not hyperbole.

AZGrizFan wrote:

D1B wrote:
That would mean you'd actually have to work hard. Are you capable of doing that?

I said I'd OPEN the agency, I didn't say I'd actually work there.

Even harder work to open a business.

Just can't see a banker making a comittment like that, let alone having the balls to actually create wealth versus being a parasite.

UNI88 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Money can limit free speech. Why do you hate ideas so much?

Spending money on advertising is an expression of free speech. I think your problem is that this gives people/groups with money an increased ability to express their opinions compared to those with less or no money. If we want to argue the merits, let's do it based on reality and not hyperbole.

That's a worthy and important argument but I was responding to Ganny's own hyperbole.

D1B wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
I said I'd OPEN the agency, I didn't say I'd actually work there.

Even harder work to open a business.

Just can't see a banker making a comittment like that, let alone having the balls to actually create wealth versus being a parasite.

Well, you can't see much so that doesn't surprise me.

I was drunk last night and didn't fully comprehend what I was reading. I thought this was FOR Obamacare not against. I think it is good money well spent if it is going against obamacare.

Our transparent president

"The way to make government responsible is to hold it accountable. The way to make government accountable is to make it transparent, so the American people can know exactly what decisions are being made, how they're being well made, and whether their interests are being well served...For a long time now, there's been too much secrecy in this city. The old rules said that if there was a defensible argument for not disclosing something to the American people, then it should not be disclosed. That era is now over, starting today." BHO

White House Has Known For Months Obamacare Implementation Wouldn't Work
CBS News ^ | July 9, 2013 | by Margo Sanger-Katz

If you've been reading all the Obamacare stories lately, you might get the impression that the administration has just realized it will not be able to implement the massive health reform as designed.
It has known for months.

As far back as March, a top IT official at the Department of Health and Human Services said the department's current ambition for the law's new online insurance marketplaces was that they not be "a Third-World experience." Several provisions had already been abandoned in an effort to simplify the administration's task and maximize the chances that the new systems would be ready to go live in October, when customers are supposed to start signing up for insurance.

(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...

kalm wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
Spending money on advertising is an expression of free speech. I think your problem is that this gives people/groups with money an increased ability to express their opinions compared to those with less or no money. If we want to argue the merits, let's do it based on reality and not hyperbole.

That's a worthy and important argument but I was responding to Ganny's own hyperbole.

What hyperbole? Maybe you can answer that when you show me how money limits my free speech.

kalm wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
Spending money on advertising is an expression of free speech. I think your problem is that this gives people/groups with money an increased ability to express their opinions compared to those with less or no money. If we want to argue the merits, let's do it based on reality and not hyperbole.

That's a worthy and important argument but I was responding to Ganny's own hyperbole.

Let's analyze Ganny's statement and see if there is any hyperbole:

- I never understand why people decry other people spending money on advertising.
A simple statement, no hyperbole.

- It's not like the money is being burned and goes away
A tad dramatic but factual, not hyperbole.

- it's a perfectly acceptable transfer of money from one person to another for a service that ends up helping the economy in the grand scheme of things.
A reasonable explanation of how a market works and how advertising helps drive the economy, no hyperbole.

- Why do people hate free speech and expression so much?
A little sarcastic but not hyperbole.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
That's a worthy and important argument but I was responding to Ganny's own hyperbole.

What hyperbole? Maybe you can answer that when you show me how money limits my free speech.

Through the consolidation of media and advertising.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
What hyperbole? Maybe you can answer that when you show me how money limits my free speech.

Through the consolidation of media and advertising.

So if everyone's speech is limited equally, then its ok?

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

DSUrocks07 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Through the consolidation of media and advertising.

So if everyone's speech is limited equally, then its ok?

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

Not necessarily. I acknowledged that it's a very tricky argument, but the fact remains that consolidated wealth and power makes it much easier to affect political outcomes and crush dissent. It can also reduce competition which is suppose to be one of the guiding lights of capitalism.

kalm wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote:
So if everyone's speech is limited equally, then its ok?

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

Not necessarily. I acknowledged that it's a very tricky argument, but the fact remains that consolidated wealth and power makes it much easier to affect political outcomes and crush dissent. It can also reduce competition which is suppose to be one of the guiding lights of capitalism.

But that's a different argument. You're now arguing about political persuasion and influence. That's different than free speech. Consolidated wealth and power, or even reduced competition, do not in any way affect my right for free speech. I can still say whatever I want to say to whomever I want to say it (within the historical limits of free speech - there's always been some limit, but I don't believe it's credibly changed much over time). That's what free speech is.

And frankly, the individual person today has as much ability, if not more, to have their voice heard than ever before. It's odd in this age of instant communication on a worldwide basis that's been absolutely unfathomable in prior generations that you would actually argue that people's speech is limited. I have much more chance today to be heard by millions (not followed, just heard) than a Kentucky farmer a generation ago or an English factory worker at the start of the Industrial Revolution or an African pygmy tribesman hundreds of years ago. Don't confuse free speech with the ability to successfully persuade people on a political point - they're not one in the same as you've alluded to with your argument.