A Superbowl ad you won't be viewing...

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,037
21
81
Originally posted by: jumpr
or for tax cuts that will have absolutely NO impact on either me or my parents. Add to that the fiscal crisis that many of our states are in, and my tuition could be going up >10% next year.

What do you do for a living? What does your family do for a living?

Right now, I'm asking myself if I'm better off than I was four years ago. No...my family and I are doing MUCH worse. But we're making more money. How could that be? :confused:

If there had been no tax cuts, and you were still making more money, do you think you'd be keeping more, or paying more taxes?
 

Pacfanweb

Lifer
Jan 2, 2000
13,149
57
91
Originally posted by: jumpr
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: IamElectro
Pretty lame ad

So our children will be paying our governments spending whats new about this. Hasn't this being going on since the country was founded.

LOL - I was just thinking, what if someone edited the subtitles and had them refer to Welfare, Social Security, and government paid Healthcare? :D
But those subtitles aren't there. And in my opinion, those are okay things to go into debt for. But I don't think the US should be in a trillion-dollar deficit to pay for $87 billion of Iraq reconstruction aid, or for tax cuts that will have absolutely NO impact on either me or my parents. Add to that the fiscal crisis that many of our states are in, and my tuition could be going up >10% next year.

Right now, I'm asking myself if I'm better off than I was four years ago. No...my family and I are doing MUCH worse. But we're making more money. How could that be? :confused:
You obviously aren't managing you money very well and are living beyond your means. That is the only reasonable explanation.
My wife and I are making around 25k less now than 4 years ago, but with refinancing and eliminating a lot a credit card debt, our income/outlay is about the same. Maybe even a bit better.
I'm sure there are plenty of examples of extreme situations, e.g.: where someone like a dot.com exec who was making 6 figures is now making about 40k or less, I suppose that to those particular people, things may seem worse.
However, if you lost a high-paying job and all you can find now is one that pays 1/2 of that, then you either need to change your living style, or find another high paying job.....if you can't, then you are living beyond your means. Lots of folks do it, though.
You always have those kinds of situations, and the fact of the matter is, the economy as a whole is much better and getting stronger every day.
But as to your situation, the only way that you're making more and are doing much worse, financially speaking, is living beyond your means. There is absolutely no reason other than that, barring some ridiculously expensive health problem, legal expense, or other extraordinary circumstance.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: jumpr
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: IamElectro
Pretty lame ad

So our children will be paying our governments spending whats new about this. Hasn't this being going on since the country was founded.

LOL - I was just thinking, what if someone edited the subtitles and had them refer to Welfare, Social Security, and government paid Healthcare? :D
But those subtitles aren't there. And in my opinion, those are okay things to go into debt for. But I don't think the US should be in a trillion-dollar deficit to pay for $87 billion of Iraq reconstruction aid, or for tax cuts that will have absolutely NO impact on either me or my parents. Add to that the fiscal crisis that many of our states are in, and my tuition could be going up >10% next year.

Right now, I'm asking myself if I'm better off than I was four years ago. No...my family and I are doing MUCH worse. But we're making more money. How could that be? :confused:
Take it to the politics forum. We are talking about superbowl ads.
 

LakAttack

Senior member
Oct 29, 2002
533
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Ther only law covering political speech on privately owned, but publically aired networks and radio is the Equal Time Rule.

The Equal Time rule is a Federal Communications Commission rule that requires equal air time for all major candidates competing for political office. It was preceded by the fairness doctrine, abolished in 1987, which required radio and television broadcasters to air contrasting views on controversial public issues.

So no, in no way is CBS legally or morally obligated to show this, or the PETA ad... or any ad for that matter. And as a business, I wouldn't show them either. They have people lining up to pay for advertising during the superbowl. They wont lose any money by turning down these ads, but WILL keep controversy to a minimum.

Thank you for posting the difference in equal time and fairness doctrine. I was mixing up features from the two in my mind. I still have questions about "equal" time though. If the Whitehouse is running an ad during the superbowl, then the only "equal" time would be another superbowl ad. I.E. 30 seconds during the superbowl and 30 seconds during becker are not equal. I guess since MoveOn is not a canidate, CBS is not obligated to air their ad, but in theory, if a dem canidate wanted to air an ad during the superbowl, CBS would have to carry it, right?

All legalese aside, CBS still uses the public airwaves, so I think it is still the obligation of the public to tell CBS when we think they are wrong. I personally think they are making a very political statement, and I think that is an improper use of the bandwidth they lease (partially) from me. So, I want CBS to know that. Do they have to give a $hit? No, but if enough people tell them they disapprove, then they might start to.
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,037
21
81
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Originally posted by: jumpr
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: IamElectro
Pretty lame ad

So our children will be paying our governments spending whats new about this. Hasn't this being going on since the country was founded.

LOL - I was just thinking, what if someone edited the subtitles and had them refer to Welfare, Social Security, and government paid Healthcare? :D
But those subtitles aren't there. And in my opinion, those are okay things to go into debt for. But I don't think the US should be in a trillion-dollar deficit to pay for $87 billion of Iraq reconstruction aid, or for tax cuts that will have absolutely NO impact on either me or my parents. Add to that the fiscal crisis that many of our states are in, and my tuition could be going up >10% next year.

Right now, I'm asking myself if I'm better off than I was four years ago. No...my family and I are doing MUCH worse. But we're making more money. How could that be? :confused:
You obviously aren't managing you money very well and are living beyond your means. That is the only reasonable explanation.
Let's not jump to conclusions. He could very well have been pushed into a tax bracket that is making his net income suffer. So instead of assuming, let's find out his situation and look at the cause and effect of the tax cuts in his situation.
 

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Originally posted by: jumpr
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: IamElectro
Pretty lame ad

So our children will be paying our governments spending whats new about this. Hasn't this being going on since the country was founded.

LOL - I was just thinking, what if someone edited the subtitles and had them refer to Welfare, Social Security, and government paid Healthcare? :D
But those subtitles aren't there. And in my opinion, those are okay things to go into debt for. But I don't think the US should be in a trillion-dollar deficit to pay for $87 billion of Iraq reconstruction aid, or for tax cuts that will have absolutely NO impact on either me or my parents. Add to that the fiscal crisis that many of our states are in, and my tuition could be going up >10% next year.

Right now, I'm asking myself if I'm better off than I was four years ago. No...my family and I are doing MUCH worse. But we're making more money. How could that be? :confused:
You obviously aren't managing you money very well and are living beyond your means. That is the only reasonable explanation.
Let's not jump to conclusions. He could very well have been pushed into a tax bracket that is making his net income suffer. So instead of assuming, let's find out his situation and look at the cause and effect of the tax cuts in his situation.
I'm a college student. My parents are professionals (my dad is a physician and my mom is a librarian with a masters degree in library science). My parents are making good money, but they are currently paying upwards of 33% in taxes. Add to that the fact that their mutual funds are only beginning to recover from their worst performances in 10 years, and they're quite concerned. They have plenty in savings, and they still have quite a bit in their mutual funds, but my parents would prefer not to work past 65. Also the fact that there's no guarantee they'll be getting Social Security benefits when they retire is making them very concerned about their later years.

Also, my tuition has gone up well over 15% since I started school. U of M is a great bargain for in-state students, but it's nothing to sneeze at. My parents were lucky enough to be able to afford college costs out-of-pocket, but past tuition increases (which are WELL above the inflation rate) have made them wonder if they would have been better off getting a loan to pay for the costs and not have to worry about coming up with the cash.

I work at the University as a computer consultant. I'm making $0.50 less an hour than I was at this time last year when I had my dream job doing vehicle patrols for the University's Department of Public Safety. That program was axed, not at all due to lack of utilization by the campus community, but because the Department didn't have enough funds to pay us. The University is feeling the effects of an EXTREME budget crisis brought on my Michigan's former Republican governor (John Engler) and our Democratic governor currently is trying to cut the slack to bring the state back into the black. I don't care who's in office, but if my tuition keeps going up, it's gonna keep hurting for my family and me.

So, in essence, my family is making great money, is giving 1/3 of it to the government (though tax 'cuts' have been advertised as helping people just like US!), my tuition is going way way up, my wages are going down, and we're having a harder time paying for things that four years ago seemed easy to afford.

IMHO, Bush can take his tax cuts and stuff them. They're not helping my family, so what do I care if they're apparently helping "middle class families?" We are middle class.
 

cmdavid

Diamond Member
May 23, 2001
4,114
0
0
i sent my letter to CBS telling them thank you for not airing that crap during the SuperBowl. I commend their decision to pick and choose which commercials/ads they run and to practice their 1st Amendment rights....
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,037
21
81
Originally posted by: jumpr
I'm a college student. My parents are professionals (my dad is a physician and my mom is a librarian with a masters degree in library science). My parents are making good money, but they are currently paying upwards of 33% in taxes. Add to that the fact that their mutual funds are only beginning to recover from their worst performances in 10 years, and they're quite concerned. They have plenty in savings, and they still have quite a bit in their mutual funds, but my parents would prefer not to work past 65. Also the fact that there's no guarantee they'll be getting Social Security benefits when they retire is making them very concerned about their later years.

I'm making okay money, and my wife and I are paying about 33% in taxes as well. Concering mutual funds, you remember we were in a recession starting at the end of Clinton's term? Our economy has made a quick comeback considering. With your parents' profession, SS would be pocket change compared to any retirement funds they could be building, unless of course they expect SS to take care of them and they're just squandering their money away now. I hope that is not the case.

Also, my tuition has gone up well over 15% since I started school. U of M is a great bargain for in-state students, but it's nothing to sneeze at. My parents were lucky enough to be able to afford college costs out-of-pocket, but past tuition increases (which are WELL above the inflation rate) have made them wonder if they would have been better off getting a loan to pay for the costs and not have to worry about coming up with the cash.

Your tuition is decided by your school and local tax policies. My tuition has gone up 25%. So your parents are paying for your college? Are you going to pay them back?

I work at the University as a computer consultant. I'm making $0.50 less an hour than I was at this time last year when I had my dream job doing vehicle patrols for the University's Department of Public Safety. That program was axed, not at all due to lack of utilization by the campus community, but because the Department didn't have enough funds to pay us. The University is feeling the effects of an EXTREME budget crisis brought on my Michigan's former Republican governor (John Engler) and our Democratic governor currently is trying to cut the slack to bring the state back into the black. I don't care who's in office, but if my tuition keeps going up, it's gonna keep hurting for my family and me.
Sorry to hear about your dream job. But I guess that is what happens when you have a public job that relies on people's tax money to fund it.
So, in essence, my family is making great money, is giving 1/3 of it to the government (though tax 'cuts' have been advertised as helping people just like US!), my tuition is going way way up, my wages are going down, and we're having a harder time paying for things that four years ago seemed easy to afford.
If my employers are making more money, that means more investment into the company, which means higher salary increases and benefits for me, which means more employment for others because of company expansion. Our firm cut back a fifth of it's employees because of Sept. 11, but now that the economy is picking back up we are growing VERY fast and many of us are seeing the rewards of it.

IMHO, Bush can take his tax cuts and stuff them. They're not helping my family, so what do I care if they're apparently helping "middle class families?" We are middle class.

That is a very selfish stance to take. They're not helping your family directly, but they're not hurting your family either. Instead they are helping all families indirectly because more jobs can be created, or the existing jobs are paid more. Right now it's more the latter. If the entire tax cut was aimed right into yours and my tax bracket, would we be happy? Would you then pay for your own college and retirement plan?

By the way, what are you going to college for?
 

Mookow

Lifer
Apr 24, 2001
10,162
0
0
Originally posted by: jumpr
I'm a college student. My parents are professionals (my dad is a physician and my mom is a librarian with a masters degree in library science). My parents are making good money, but they are currently paying upwards of 33% in taxes. Add to that the fact that their mutual funds are only beginning to recover from their worst performances in 10 years, and they're quite concerned. They have plenty in savings, and they still have quite a bit in their mutual funds, but my parents would prefer not to work past 65. Also the fact that there's no guarantee they'll be getting Social Security benefits when they retire is making them very concerned about their later years.

Ummm, yeah, the growth of the stock market in the 90's wasnt all based on actual growth of production, people were throwing money at projects that didnt even have prediction of when they would become profitable. Now we are back to thinking about "can this company make a profit", which has caused many stocks to decline. Also, many stocks were overinflated due to highly creative accounting. Most of these trends were started before Bush took office.

Also, my tuition has gone up well over 15% since I started school. U of M is a great bargain for in-state students, but it's nothing to sneeze at. My parents were lucky enough to be able to afford college costs out-of-pocket, but past tuition increases (which are WELL above the inflation rate) have made them wonder if they would have been better off getting a loan to pay for the costs and not have to worry about coming up with the cash.

College tuition (ditto for private HS and grade schools) has been outpacing inflation for a very long time. Keeping up to date equipment at the schools isnt cheap.

I work at the University as a computer consultant. I'm making $0.50 less an hour than I was at this time last year when I had my dream job doing vehicle patrols for the University's Department of Public Safety. That program was axed, not at all due to lack of utilization by the campus community, but because the Department didn't have enough funds to pay us. The University is feeling the effects of an EXTREME budget crisis brought on my Michigan's former Republican governor (John Engler) and our Democratic governor currently is trying to cut the slack to bring the state back into the black. I don't care who's in office, but if my tuition keeps going up, it's gonna keep hurting for my family and me.

If I understand this correctly, your parents are paying for your "college costs", and you presumably are working for discretionary income. That puts you at least in "upper middle class", as most middle class kids do have to help pay for college, if not foot the whole bill themselves. I used to get some help from my folks, but I was still taking out loans. I couldnt afford it, and the chance to move back to the Cleveland area and attend the university my father works for at no tuition cost opened up, and I took it. I however, pay for books, lab fees, etc. Without that, I would have been delaying my college education for 4 years and then taken advantage of the G.I. Bill. College education is not a right, though I have been getting the impression that you think it should be easy, cheap/free, and open to everyone. The economy is down, budgets that were inflated (due to the inflated economy and thus higher tax reciepts) are smaller, non-essential projects get cut. Maybe you should check out CA, where the term "extreme" can be applied to their budget problems.

So, in essence, my family is making great money, is giving 1/3 of it to the government (though tax 'cuts' have been advertised as helping people just like US!), my tuition is going way way up, my wages are going down, and we're having a harder time paying for things that four years ago seemed easy to afford.

IMHO, Bush can take his tax cuts and stuff them. They're not helping my family, so what do I care if they're apparently helping "middle class families?" We are middle class.

OK, well, take a look at what your taxes would be without the cuts. Then ask yourself what you would have to cut out of your life to make up for that. That is what they have done for you. And since I'm assuming your dad the Dr. and your mother has a Master's, they are pulling in at least 100K, gross, between the two of them. More likely, it is closer to 150K/year. Every 1% that was taken off your parents taxes is ~$1500 back in their pockets. Unless they have 12 kids, they are in no cases bleeding for cash. You arent hurting for cash, you just want to continue buying expensive things that you used to buy. Boo hoo. Yet you say you would glady pay for nationalized health care and social services... you might want to check out how much those would cost (and for the costs, take the projected cost, multiply by 1.5, then add 6% every year and you have a more realistic number for what it will, in reality, cost).
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,843
13,937
146
Originally posted by: LakAttack
Originally posted by: Amused
Ther only law covering political speech on privately owned, but publically aired networks and radio is the Equal Time Rule.

The Equal Time rule is a Federal Communications Commission rule that requires equal air time for all major candidates competing for political office. It was preceded by the fairness doctrine, abolished in 1987, which required radio and television broadcasters to air contrasting views on controversial public issues.

So no, in no way is CBS legally or morally obligated to show this, or the PETA ad... or any ad for that matter. And as a business, I wouldn't show them either. They have people lining up to pay for advertising during the superbowl. They wont lose any money by turning down these ads, but WILL keep controversy to a minimum.

Thank you for posting the difference in equal time and fairness doctrine. I was mixing up features from the two in my mind. I still have questions about "equal" time though. If the Whitehouse is running an ad during the superbowl, then the only "equal" time would be another superbowl ad. I.E. 30 seconds during the superbowl and 30 seconds during becker are not equal. I guess since MoveOn is not a canidate, CBS is not obligated to air their ad, but in theory, if a dem canidate wanted to air an ad during the superbowl, CBS would have to carry it, right?

All legalese aside, CBS still uses the public airwaves, so I think it is still the obligation of the public to tell CBS when we think they are wrong. I personally think they are making a very political statement, and I think that is an improper use of the bandwidth they lease (partially) from me. So, I want CBS to know that. Do they have to give a $hit? No, but if enough people tell them they disapprove, then they might start to.

What is the content and message of the White House ad? Is it political? Or is it a public service message? While GWB may be a candidate in the upcoming election, he is still our president and as such represents the country and is authorized and obligated to speak in such a capacity. I highly doubt the White House ad is political in nature. But you can prove me wrong by posting the exact content and message of the ad.

You can cry to CBS all you want. As I said before, they are neither legally nor morally obligated to carry either the PETA ad or the Moveon ad.
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,037
21
81
Originally posted by: Amused
While GWB may be a candidate in the upcoming election, he is still our president and as such represents the country and is authorized and obligated to speak in such a capacity.

You really have a point there. :)
 

C'DaleRider

Guest
Jan 13, 2000
3,048
0
0
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: Amused
While GWB may be a candidate in the upcoming election, he is still our president and as such represents the country and is authorized and obligated to speak in such a capacity.

You really have a point there. :)

Actually, the way the Equal Time Rule is written, until GWB is a formally declared candidate for reelection for President, he's not subject to the rule. Only declared candidates are subject to that regulation, and while everyone and his brother knows GWB is going to run for reelection, he's yet to formally declare......he doesn't and won't until his primary season actually opens.....and since there won't be any primarys he has to actually run in (he's the de facto Republican candidate and will be renominated by his convention), he may not declare until the last possible moment allowable in his state of record or federally (I don't know which controls this in his case) to skirt this Equal Time Rule. All sitting politicians do this to give the opposition as little "equal time" as possible.
 

Pacfanweb

Lifer
Jan 2, 2000
13,149
57
91
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Originally posted by: jumpr
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: IamElectro
Pretty lame ad

So our children will be paying our governments spending whats new about this. Hasn't this being going on since the country was founded.

LOL - I was just thinking, what if someone edited the subtitles and had them refer to Welfare, Social Security, and government paid Healthcare? :D
But those subtitles aren't there. And in my opinion, those are okay things to go into debt for. But I don't think the US should be in a trillion-dollar deficit to pay for $87 billion of Iraq reconstruction aid, or for tax cuts that will have absolutely NO impact on either me or my parents. Add to that the fiscal crisis that many of our states are in, and my tuition could be going up >10% next year.

Right now, I'm asking myself if I'm better off than I was four years ago. No...my family and I are doing MUCH worse. But we're making more money. How could that be? :confused:
You obviously aren't managing you money very well and are living beyond your means. That is the only reasonable explanation.
Let's not jump to conclusions. He could very well have been pushed into a tax bracket that is making his net income suffer. So instead of assuming, let's find out his situation and look at the cause and effect of the tax cuts in his situation.

There is no such tax bracket. If you make more, you bring home more. Period. There is no magical point that you make more but actually bring home less net because of higher taxes.
He's talking 4 years ago. Like I said, if he had some high-paying job then and has since lost it, and has significantly reduced income, than his only option would be to change his lifestyle to match his income.
If he didn't, than he's definitely in worse shape.......in fact, even if he did, he may consider himself to be worse off because of the changes he's had to make.
BUT, he said he's making MORE money, yet is worse off......as I said before, the ONLY way that could happen, other than something catastrophic like a huge medical or legal bill, is living beyond your means.
If he's still living in the same place, hasn't increased his overall debt, and is making more money, than his finances CAN'T be worse off, especially after the tax cuts and reduction of the marriage penalty.

 

wizardbud

Member
Sep 11, 2003
32
0
0
Originally posted by: IanthePez
BORING....no one wants that crap during the awesome superbowl commercials.


You mean like the "You smoke weed so you are responsible for killing cops and fireman" ad's?
Or the "You bought some pot so you support terrorists" ads?

The scary thing here is, CBS/Viacom who is trying to get the FCC to allow them to buy even more radio and television stations, doesn't want this ad on because they are afraid of pissing off the White House.

But, they have no problem with airing the anti-drug ad's, where kids smoke a doob and wind up raped or shot in the head by a playmate because of the evil marijuana.

The airwaves are supposed to be for the use of all opinions and all people.

I don't think it should be aired either, but if they are going to allow one viewpoint, they should also allow an opposing one as well.
 

TechnoKid

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2001
5,575
0
0
While I agree partally that the ad is somewhat misleading in a way, the fact is is that we are in a VERY big national debt. I'm not saying or imlpying that Bush created [all] the debt, but he has done little about it to reduce it, or at least "appear" to make it smaller (something politicians are somehow very good at).
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,037
21
81
Originally posted by: wizardbud
Originally posted by: IanthePez
BORING....no one wants that crap during the awesome superbowl commercials.


You mean like the "You smoke weed so you are responsible for killing cops and fireman" ad's?
Or the "You bought some pot so you support terrorists" ads?

The scary thing here is, CBS/Viacom who is trying to get the FCC to allow them to buy even more radio and television stations, doesn't want this ad on because they are afraid of pissing off the White House.

But, they have no problem with airing the anti-drug ad's, where kids smoke a doob and wind up raped or shot in the head by a playmate because of the evil marijuana.

The airwaves are supposed to be for the use of all opinions and all people.

I don't think it should be aired either, but if they are going to allow one viewpoint, they should also allow an opposing one as well.
You smoke a lot of pot don't you.
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,037
21
81
Originally posted by: TechnoKid
While I agree partally that the ad is somewhat misleading in a way, the fact is is that we are in a VERY big national debt. I'm not saying or imlpying that Bush created [all] the debt, but he has done little about it to reduce it, or at least "appear" to make it smaller (something politicians are somehow very good at).

Learned some interesting statistics earlier today on WVIA. Had something to do with the National Income versus the Deficit. I should have written it down because I can't remember the dates... it was something like 1989 versus now. Even though our Deficit is higher now, the debt to income ratio is lower - only 4.x %. Whereas years ago the deficit total was lower, but the percentage was 6%, because our Income (or Worth?) was lower.

Can anybody that knows what I'm refering to, find a link for this?
 

spyordie007

Diamond Member
May 28, 2001
6,229
0
0
wow what a great add, I wish it was playing so all those bush supporters would see what trouble their leader is causing my children
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
First amendment isn't applicable here because CBS is not the government. It's just like how you can't come to my house and force me to listen to you, nor can you go to a bar and force the people there to listen to you. CBS is a business and is not subject to the same regulations regarding free speech as the government is. If the government was blocking the ad then I would be freaking out and saying it was terrible. However, CBS is exercising their right to prevent inflammatory material from airing on their network. Would you people be happy with a KKK ad detailing their views? People who want the Dem ad to air would be ok with the KKK having a 30 second spot right?

In actuality the KKK probably doesn't have the money, but CBS wouldn't air a Klan ad simply because it will drive viewers OR other advertisers away. It's just like how FX lost sponsors when it first started airing The Shield. Corporations and Private businesses do not have to allow people to have free speech on their property.