Your tax dollars for propaganda.

[Back]

Bush Spent $1.6 Bil. on 'Spin' (http://www.adweek.com/aw/national/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001996193)


The Bush Administration spent $1.4 billion in taxpayer dollars on 137 contracts with advertising agencies over the past two-and-a-half years, according to a Government Accountability Office report released by House Democrats today.

With spending on public relations and other media included, federal agencies spent $1.6 billion on what some Democrats called "spin."

The six largest recipients of ad and PR dollars were Leo Burnett USA, $536 million; Campbell-Ewald, $194 million; GSD&M, $179 million; JWT, $148 million; Frankel, $133 million; and Ketchum, $78 million. The agencies received more than $1.2 billion in media contracts, according to the report.

-----------------------------------------------------

Are you comfortable with this administration spending your tax dollars on trying to convince you through expert advertisers of their cause?

-----------------------------------------------------

Dang, I can't edit the actual title. Happened to me twice now. I suck at life.

[Landrion]

Bush Spent $1.6 Bil. on 'Spin' (http://www.adweek.com/aw/national/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001996193)



-----------------------------------------------------

Are you comfortable with this administration spending your tax dollars on trying to convince you through expert advertisers of their cause?

-----------------------------------------------------

Dang, I can't edit the actual title. Happened to me twice now. I suck at life.


Im really pissed. All I ever hear is bad shit about this administration. They must be spending all that money on hookers and beer or something.

[Latrinsorm]

It doesn't sound that bad when one realizes $1.1b of that was DoD stuff (those wacky Army commercials, for instance). It also seems a bit duplicitous to say that "Bush spent $x on spin" when the programs listed are things like "A Food and Drug Administration contract had the objective of warning the public about the "consequences and potential dangers of buying prescription drugs from non-U.S. sources."". The only thing I saw that could be construed as shady was "expert advice and support in the development of several marriage-related research initiatives,".

Would I rather that money be spent on, for instance, feeding the hungry? Sure, but I could say that about pretty much everything the government spends money on.

[Emo Emu]

In one of the most (if not the most) obese countries in the world, we definately need to spend money on feeding the hungry.

- Luke

[Latrinsorm]

In one of the most (if not the most) obese countries in the world, we definately need to spend money on feeding the hungry.Hunger anywhere is injustice everywhere.

[xtc]

It doesn't sound that bad when one realizes $1.1b of that was DoD stuff (those wacky Army commercials, for instance). It also seems a bit duplicitous to say that "Bush spent $x on spin" when the programs listed are things like "A Food and Drug Administration contract had the objective of warning the public about the "consequences and potential dangers of buying prescription drugs from non-U.S. sources."". The only thing I saw that could be construed as shady was "expert advice and support in the development of several marriage-related research initiatives,".

Would I rather that money be spent on, for instance, feeding the hungry? Sure, but I could say that about pretty much everything the government spends money on.

So protecting the Pharmaceutical industries massive profits and lying to the American people. I don't think that is a good way to spend the American taxpayers money. However I am betting they aren't the only administration to spend money this way.

[Gan]

I'd like to see the actual list of what all that money went for instead of just taking someone else's opinion of what [spin] it was used for.

Brought to you by another shining example of someone making up your mind for you instead of giving you the data and letting you form your own bloody opinion.

[Warriorbird]

Sort of like you and Worldnet, O'Reilly, Fox, and the hate/talk radio?

[Emo Emu]

Valid point, Eric, but how to you assure that the food gets to the right people and not to Warlords that use it for their own means? It's such a slippery slope, but I agree, there is no reason why people should be starving.

- Luke

[Back]

I'd like to see the actual list of what all that money went for instead of just taking someone else's opinion of what [spin] it was used for.

Brought to you by another shining example of someone making up your mind for you instead of giving you the data and letting you form your own bloody opinion.

They do detail some of the spending in the article. Is it biased? I don't think it is one way or the other. First off because it is a magazine for the advertising industry which is getting this huge windfall of money.

I agree that the headline could have been more accurate.

But regardless of that, does it sit well with you that the government gives some of the money we give it to people who are experts at basically manipulating you into buying whatever it is they are selling?

[Gan]

But regardless of that, does it sit well with you that the government gives some of the money we give it to people who are experts at basically manipulating you into buying whatever it is they are selling?

That happens anytime you donate to a political party, any political party.

I'm sure there are some things in that report that I would dislike as well, contrary to popular belief, I do not support everything that the Bush administration does or says.

[Gan]

Sort of like you and Worldnet, O'Reilly, Fox, and the hate/talk radio?

What's worldnet?

I can only stand about 15 minutes of Fox news before it just turns into repetitive blah. O'reilly I watch occasionally for entertainment value.

And the only thing on my radio is music, all kinds of music and NPR when I feel the need to listen to extended news. If I listened to hate/talk radio in the car I could not function in Houston traffic and would probably experience such a heightened sense of road rage that I'd wind up in jail.

[Latrinsorm]

how to you assure that the food gets to the right people and not to Warlords that use it for their own means?By that point in my plan the world would be under one government, so the warlords would be taken care of. I recognize that straight-up charity is not a perfectly viable solution at the present time.

[Soulpieced]

Your McRib sandwich... overtaken by warlords.

[Warriorbird]

What's worldnet?

I can only stand about 15 minutes of Fox news before it just turns into repetitive blah. O'reilly I watch occasionally for entertainment value.

And the only thing on my radio is music, all kinds of music and NPR when I feel the need to listen to extended news. If I listened to hate/talk radio in the car I could not function in Houston traffic and would probably experience such a heightened sense of road rage that I'd wind up in jail.

Then where do get your corny talking points from? Are you that much of a true believer? Bush isn't even clasically a very good Republican.

[Gan]

After almost a year of talking politics and over 2K posts in the folder and you still dont know where I stand or where I pull my information from, even if I always cited it... You disappoint me. Nice try in attempting to throw me into the generic republican bashing category that you like to throw others into that dont see things your way.

Oh wait, perhaps you forgot... you can always blame the hashish for that.

[Back]

After almost a year of talking politics and over 2K posts in the folder and you still dont know where I stand or where I pull my information from, even if I always cited it... You disappoint me. Nice try in attempting to throw me into the generic republican bashing category that you like to throw others into that dont see things your way.

Oh wait, perhaps you forgot... you can always blame the hashish for that.

Gan, its obvious where you stand. I don't think anyone here could argue.

Even if they were smoking hashish.

If you really wanted to rub it in, instead of the smoking hashish argument, you should have used the buying hashish supports the Taliban argument.

[Warriorbird]

Curiously enough, Ganalon...that'd fly...if I hadn't been reading your arguments too...so, unless you're really Karl Rove...you have some other sources. I haven't smoked hash since a trip to Amsterdam nigh on five years ago. It's legal there, if you haven't watched Pulp Fiction.

I could say something about you putting down Hanni...well, but that would put me in your category.

[Gan]

Not that this thread is about me, but WB, if you have evidence of me justifying your previous theory then throw it out. I've always stood against big government and organized politcs, organized religion, rabid liberalism, and jumping to conclusions with little evidence to support the jump.

I know the last one hits a soft spot with you, since its a tenet of your existence. My opinons are my own for the most part unless I'm in total agreement with someone, then I state so, even when I'm using someone elses stance or opinion to further illustrate my own.

So please, if you feel to drag it on further you can U2U me WB, or you can start another thread. I do not wish to hijack this thread anymore.

[Emo Emu]

One world government? C'mon, we need actually viable solutions if you're going to throw things out. One world government is not going to fly in today's society or any other in the forseeable future.

- Luke

[Latrinsorm]

Today's society had its (their?) chance. Time to move on.

[DeV]

One world government? C'mon, we need actually viable solutions if you're going to throw things out. One world government is not going to fly in today's society or any other in the forseeable future.

- Luke
One word... globalization.

p.s. I agree with you.

[xtc]

I'd like to see the actual list of what all that money went for instead of just taking someone else's opinion of what [spin] it was used for.

Brought to you by another shining example of someone making up your mind for you instead of giving you the data and letting you form your own bloody opinion.

That would be ideal but in most cases it isn't practical. I can't imagine pouring over $1.6 Billion in spending reports. I think I could write off a few years of my life. On occasion I have read entire bills if I have time and the issue is serious enough. It is a time consuming task and in Canada we don't have add ons to bills, so a bill is what the bill is suppose to be about. We have passed the odd omnibus bill but I pass on reading those.

The story is an Associated Press story not one from moveon.org.

[xtc]

Not that this thread is about me, but WB, if you have evidence of me justifying your previous theory then throw it out. I've always stood against big government and organized politcs, organized religion, rabid liberalism, and jumping to conclusions with little evidence to support the jump.

I know the last one hits a soft spot with you, since its a tenet of your existence. My opinons are my own for the most part unless I'm in total agreement with someone, then I state so, even when I'm using someone elses stance or opinion to further illustrate my own.

So please, if you feel to drag it on further you can U2U me WB, or you can start another thread. I do not wish to hijack this thread anymore.


So if you are a true conservative, you are against creating and sustaining more massive Federal Departments and programs like the Department of Homeland Security? You would be against invading other countries preferring a more isolationist philosophy, like those who attacked Clinton for Yugoslavia and Somalia? You prefer lower taxes across the board and despise massive deficit increases?

I am not saying you are a blanket Bush supporter but I am not sure you are a true conservative either. I think your default position is to support the Republican party when in doubt, a stance I understand because it was once mine. I now get called rapid liberal by the likes of Xyelin, despite being for lower taxes, against excessive government interference, pro-life, against embryonic stem cell research and against deficits.

[Gan]

So if you are a true conservative, you are against creating and sustaining more massive Federal Departments and programs like the Department of Homeland Security?
This is an issue I'm torn on. I dont like large programs, but I understand the immediate need for internal security and the reason why it was created instead of just empowering the US military as other countries do. In the long run, I hope to see it eventually turned over to local authorities when they prove competent to perform the tasks necessary uniformly and sufficiently.


You would be against invading other countries preferring a more isolationist philosophy, like those who attacked Clinton for Yugoslavia and Somalia?
Isolationism in any form is against my philosophy, especially economic and political. Thus why I do not adhere to blanket isolationism. Democrats are isolationist in their opinion of free trade because of protecting american work force and american industry (more the former than the latter). So saying isolationism is just a trait of any singular political party is inaccurate.


You prefer lower taxes across the board and despise massive deficit increases?
I believe that the people are responsible for base level services provided by the US government (infrastructure, security, protective agencies), but beyond that I believe that the free market economy should take over. If there is to be any tax, lets tax spending (ie. national sales tax) instead of earning so we dont penalize those who work hard for their dollar and are wise in how they spend it.


I am not saying you are a blanket Bush supporter but I am not sure you are a true conservative either. I think your default position is to support the Republican party when in doubt, a stance I understand because it was once mine. I now get called rapid liberal by the likes of Xyelin, despite being for lower taxes, against excessive government interference, pro-life, against embryonic stem cell research and against deficits.
You are correct for the most part. I identify some with the democratic party when it comes to ideals such as religion. However, I identify more with republican ideals with regards to economic and foreign philosophies. These are way more important than what goes on in my bedroom or how I practice my spirituality, in my opinion. Thus, the reason why I support the Bush administration, even at the expense of putting up with the fanatical religious drivel that flavors the water. In my mind, they are the lesser of the two evils.

Yet understand that it is just as important for the democratic party to be as active in order to ensure balance and moderate stances by the republican party. The key is balance and moderation. One party without the other would be a choice I would not care to be faced with.

And my stance on abortion and stem cell research would suprise you though, as well as other things that involve tangible fundamental personal freedoms.

[Warriorbird]

Government spending has tripled in ten years of a Republican Congress. I find your notions hilarious, Ganalon. If anything, the Republicans are nationalists rather than conservatives.

[Gan]

You're entitled to your opinion WB. Too bad I cant buy a cup of coffee with it.

[xtc]

This is an issue I'm torn on. I dont like large programs, but I understand the immediate need for internal security and the reason why it was created instead of just empowering the US military as other countries do. In the long run, I hope to see it eventually turned over to local authorities when they prove competent to perform the tasks necessary uniformly and sufficiently.

Funny I am torn too but I hate what was Bush done. I think we have sacrificed way too much in the way of civil liberties and I am not sure all the massive spending has made us more secure.



Isolationism in any form is against my philosophy, especially economic and political. Thus why I do not adhere to blanket isolationism. Democrats are isolationist in their opinion of free trade because of protecting american work force and american industry (more the former than the latter). So saying isolationism is just a trait of any singular political party is inaccurate.

Neither do I adhere to blanket isolantionism but I think it is important to remember that when Adam Smith was talking about the invisible hand he was talking about national trade not international. Fair trade is key as well and when China doesn't float their currency and uses Prison labour that is hardly fair. Not to mention their lack of environmental standards.


I believe that the people are responsible for base level services provided by the US government (infrastructure, security, protective agencies), but beyond that I believe that the free market economy should take over. If there is to be any tax, lets tax spending (ie. national sales tax) instead of earning so we dont penalize those who work hard for their dollar and are wise in how they spend it.

I am more likely to spend money on certain social (not socialist) programs. I like universal healthcare but I can't say I am a fan of a cradle to grave welfare state. National Sales Taxes are a European idea and one that we implemented in Canada some 13 odd years ago. It is massively unpopular and is going to be slowly repealed back by 2% by the new Conservative Government. National Sales Tax are a big drag on an economy because companies must pay them too.



You are correct for the most part. I identify some with the democratic party when it comes to ideals such as religion. However, I identify more with republican ideals with regards to economic and foreign philosophies. These are way more important than what goes on in my bedroom or how I practice my spirituality, in my opinion. Thus, the reason why I support the Bush administration, even at the expense of putting up with the fanatical religious drivel that flavors the water. In my mind, they are the lesser of the two evils.

Here we disagree :) about foreign philosophies at least and the fanatics being the lesser of two evils.


Yet understand that it is just as important for the democratic party to be as active in order to ensure balance and moderate stances by the republican party. The key is balance and moderation. One party without the other would be a choice I would not care to be faced with.

True, actually a system with more than 2 viable parties would be better in my opinion. Personally I am hoping for a Democratic President and a Republican Congress in 2008 or a SANE Republican President and a Democratic Congress.


And my stance on abortion and stem cell research would suprise you though, as well as other things that involve tangible fundamental personal freedoms.


I am guessing you are against abortion and for embryonic stem cell research. My reasons for my positions on these two issues may surprise you. The older I get the more I move from Agnostic to Atheist. This means to me that life is all the more precious because when you die there isn't shit on the other side. So I think babies born and unborn are to be cherished. I believe in personal responsibility, so if you are old enough to have sex, you are old enough to raise a child or put one up for adoption. I am in favour of stem cell research just not embryonic as I believe life begins at conception. Actually all Doctors and Scientist know this, they just argue that, that life isn't human.

* This has been a pleasant discourse with Ganalon which is unusual as he is a Texan :) so please don't post why you hate my beliefs.

[Gan]

LOLAgreed XTC, thanks for sharing your thoughts, I enjoyed contributing mine.I'm an odd Texan in that I like all kinds of music, not just songs about beer, mama, trains, rain, a dog, and a pickup. I enjoy wearing a comfortable pair of tennis shoes. I dont own a cowboy hat, plenty of caps though. After this year I wont drive a truck as my primary vehicle. And I love to live in a large metropolitan area (Houston). I dont chew, smoke, or dip (anymore). I do still own a few guns though, and love to shoot them.

[Warriorbird]

Fuck opinion, Ganalon. Go look at the numbers yourself.