Bush in 30 seconds ads

[Wakie]

Has anyone else seen these?  They're on www.bushin30seconds.com

While I certainly respect CBS's right to decide which ads they want to show, I don't find anything particularly contraversial about them.  Yes, they knock Bush ... but that's what political ads are designed to do.  Everyone remembers the HW Bush ads where he blasted Dukakis and painted it that Dukakis was partying with Willie Horton.

Does anyone find these to be especially contraversial ads?  If so, why?

[jravnsbo]

1.  Its from Moveon.org and all the taint they have with their Hitler ads will keep them off CBS

2.  CBS has a policy of not running any issue ads from EITHER side its called being viewpoint neutral in the law during th Superbowl..

Has anyone else seen these?  They're on www.bushin30seconds.com

While I certainly respect CBS's right to decide which ads they want to show, I don't find anything particularly contraversial about them.  Yes, they knock Bush ... but that's what political ads are designed to do.  Everyone remembers the HW Bush ads where he blasted Dukakis and painted it that Dukakis was partying with Willie Horton.

Does anyone find these to be especially contraversial ads?  If so, why?

[Wakie]

Hold on a second.  Have you seen these ads?  None of them has any Hitler references.  They're right there on the website if you haven't viewed them.  Passing judgement on something without seeing it is kinda foolish, wouldn't you agree?

CBS certainly has the right to decide not to run "issue ads".  Heck, I respect their right to just refuse an ad on the basis of poor taste.  But from the way some of the folks on the right have painted these ads you'd think they show George Bush running around waving a machete.  Personally I don't think these are contraversial ... just very good political ads.

[© tweed]

It is CBS's right to reject the MoveOn ad, MoveOn had those terrbile Hitler-Bush ads.  CBS shouldn't be forced to be associated with the garbage that is MoveOn, regardless what the ad moveon wants to air is.

[Wakie]

You know, I've heard about this Hitler ad.  But I've never seen it.  Has anyone?  Can someone provide a link?

Or are we all just closing our eyes, sticking our fingers in our ears and yelling "LALALALALALALALALALALALA"

[© tweed]

You know, I've heard about this Hitler ad.  But I've never seen it.  Has anyone?  Can someone provide a link?

Or are we all just closing our eyes, sticking our fingers in our ears and yelling "LALALALALALALALALALALALA"

Are you denying the existance of the Hitler ad?

[Gustaf]

It looked OK, in the sense of not being overtly offensive, to me.

[Wakie]

You know, I've heard about this Hitler ad.  But I've never seen it.  Has anyone?  Can someone provide a link?

Or are we all just closing our eyes, sticking our fingers in our ears and yelling "LALALALALALALALALALALALA"

Are you denying the existance of the Hitler ad?

No, but I would like to see it before I judge it.  If it is like the ads on bushin30seconds.com then it isn't contraversial.

[© tweed]

It looked OK, in the sense of not being overtly offensive, to me.

The basis of it is still appaling.  It is groups like MoveOn who go a long way towards giving the left a bad name and helping Bush secure his re-election bid.

[jravnsbo]

did I say these had a hitler reference?  NO I said something to the effect that the bad press from moveon.org  contest surrounding the hitler ads probably played a part int he decision to stay away from controversy, or at least that was my intent.


I agree about passing judgment and I have seen the ad, they were on CNN.

but political ads are issue ads and thus project a viewpoint, which is then not neutral and their policy long before moveon.org was in existence.

Hold on a second.  Have you seen these ads?  None of them has any Hitler references.  They're right there on the website if you haven't viewed them.  Passing judgement on something without seeing it is kinda foolish, wouldn't you agree?

CBS certainly has the right to decide not to run "issue ads".  Heck, I respect their right to just refuse an ad on the basis of poor taste.  But from the way some of the folks on the right have painted these ads you'd think they show George Bush running around waving a machete.  Personally I don't think these are contraversial ... just very good political ads.

[jravnsbo]

Yes I saw them at the time.  They have been pulled because the enormous backlash.  They showed Hitler speaking in German doing the hitler salute and then pan to a picture of Bush waving with his hand, in an attempt to look like the nazi salue and then at the bottom one said, sound familiar?

You know, I've heard about this Hitler ad.  But I've never seen it.  Has anyone?  Can someone provide a link?

Or are we all just closing our eyes, sticking our fingers in our ears and yelling "LALALALALALALALALALALALA"

[mossy]

I think Fox has it on it's site, minus the audio?

[agcatter]

Please.  Can we keep the political ads out of our face even long enough to ejoy the once a year super bowl.  I don't want to hear any from either side during the game.  We're going to have them stuffed down our throats through November.  Give us a break.

[Gustaf]

Please.  Can we keep the political ads out of our face even long enough to ejoy the once a year super bowl.  I don't want to hear any from either side during the game.  We're going to have them stuffed down our throats through November.  Give us a break.

In Sweden political ads on television aren't allowed, so it's a new concept to me.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The best ad over here, was a Labour one in 1997 (the "Angel-Taxi driver" advert)
Negative in the nicest possible way

[opebo]

Hold on a second.  Have you seen these ads?  None of them has any Hitler references.  They're right there on the website if you haven't viewed them.  Passing judgement on something without seeing it is kinda foolish, wouldn't you agree?

CBS certainly has the right to decide not to run "issue ads".  Heck, I respect their right to just refuse an ad on the basis of poor taste.  But from the way some of the folks on the right have painted these ads you'd think they show George Bush running around waving a machete.  Personally I don't think these are contraversial ... just very good political ads.

I don't find them controversial, just incredibly obvious appeals to the ignorant.  The reason is this - the ad I saw shows a bunch of children working at arduous, low paying jobs, and claims that these are the people who will be 'paying off George Bush's 1 trillion dollar deficit'.  This is obvious garbage as these lower working class people pay no income tax.  Of course the typical viewer is either ignorant of this fact, or is in active denial - hence the ads would probably have been effective.

[Gustaf]

Hold on a second.  Have you seen these ads?  None of them has any Hitler references.  They're right there on the website if you haven't viewed them.  Passing judgement on something without seeing it is kinda foolish, wouldn't you agree?

CBS certainly has the right to decide not to run "issue ads".  Heck, I respect their right to just refuse an ad on the basis of poor taste.  But from the way some of the folks on the right have painted these ads you'd think they show George Bush running around waving a machete.  Personally I don't think these are contraversial ... just very good political ads.

I don't find them controversial, just incredibly obvious appeals to the ignorant.  The reason is this - the ad I saw shows a bunch of children working at arduous, low paying jobs, and claims that these are the people who will be 'paying off George Bush's 1 trillion dollar deficit'.  This is obvious garbage as these lower working class people pay no income tax.  Of course the typical viewer is either ignorant of this fact, or is in active denial - hence the ads would probably have been effective.

I thought they were foreign child labour competing with American workers due to the abolition of the steel tariffs. Are children allowed to work in the US?

[Wakie]

Hold on a second.  Have you seen these ads?  None of them has any Hitler references.  They're right there on the website if you haven't viewed them.  Passing judgement on something without seeing it is kinda foolish, wouldn't you agree?

CBS certainly has the right to decide not to run "issue ads".  Heck, I respect their right to just refuse an ad on the basis of poor taste.  But from the way some of the folks on the right have painted these ads you'd think they show George Bush running around waving a machete.  Personally I don't think these are contraversial ... just very good political ads.

I don't find them controversial, just incredibly obvious appeals to the ignorant.  The reason is this - the ad I saw shows a bunch of children working at arduous, low paying jobs, and claims that these are the people who will be 'paying off George Bush's 1 trillion dollar deficit'.  This is obvious garbage as these lower working class people pay no income tax.  Of course the typical viewer is either ignorant of this fact, or is in active denial - hence the ads would probably have been effective.

Umm ... do you need me to send you the income tax tables so you can see how much each group pays.  Every American wage earner pays taxes.  Everyone.

[sgpine]

Hold on a second.  Have you seen these ads?  None of them has any Hitler references.  They're right there on the website if you haven't viewed them.  Passing judgement on something without seeing it is kinda foolish, wouldn't you agree?

CBS certainly has the right to decide not to run "issue ads".  Heck, I respect their right to just refuse an ad on the basis of poor taste.  But from the way some of the folks on the right have painted these ads you'd think they show George Bush running around waving a machete.  Personally I don't think these are contraversial ... just very good political ads.

I don't find them controversial, just incredibly obvious appeals to the ignorant.  The reason is this - the ad I saw shows a bunch of children working at arduous, low paying jobs, and claims that these are the people who will be 'paying off George Bush's 1 trillion dollar deficit'.  This is obvious garbage as these lower working class people pay no income tax.  Of course the typical viewer is either ignorant of this fact, or is in active denial - hence the ads would probably have been effective.

So aside from income taxes, no one feels any effect of gigantic, brankrupting levels of defict spending? Pull the other one.

I'm sure if the U.S. defaults on its loan payments, resulting in a massive pullout domestically and internationally from the purchase of government bonds, forcing either: A) Massive tax increases B) Massive program cuts C) A Mostly non-functioning government D) All of the above, the lower-middle class will just be whistling dixie, safe from harm.

Right.

There's no such thing as a tax cut. If you get less money from the tax payer, you have to get more money from the bond purchaser, resulting in an even greater need for taxes in the future. Tax postponement is all you are really getting.  

[Gustaf]

Hold on a second.  Have you seen these ads?  None of them has any Hitler references.  They're right there on the website if you haven't viewed them.  Passing judgement on something without seeing it is kinda foolish, wouldn't you agree?

CBS certainly has the right to decide not to run "issue ads".  Heck, I respect their right to just refuse an ad on the basis of poor taste.  But from the way some of the folks on the right have painted these ads you'd think they show George Bush running around waving a machete.  Personally I don't think these are contraversial ... just very good political ads.

I don't find them controversial, just incredibly obvious appeals to the ignorant.  The reason is this - the ad I saw shows a bunch of children working at arduous, low paying jobs, and claims that these are the people who will be 'paying off George Bush's 1 trillion dollar deficit'.  This is obvious garbage as these lower working class people pay no income tax.  Of course the typical viewer is either ignorant of this fact, or is in active denial - hence the ads would probably have been effective.

So aside from income taxes, no one feels any effect of gigantic, brankrupting levels of defict spending? Pull the other one.

I'm sure if the U.S. defaults on its loan payments, resulting in a massive pullout domestically and internationally from the purchase of government bonds, forcing either: A) Massive tax increases B) Massive program cuts C) A Mostly non-functioning government D) All of the above, the lower-middle class will just be whistling dixie, safe from harm.

Right.

There's no such thing as a tax cut. If you get less money from the tax payer, you have to get more money from the bond purchaser, resulting in an even greater need for taxes in the future. Tax postponement is all you are really getting.  

If you cut expenses you can cut taxes. But cutting taxes without cutting expenses is just pure populism.

[opebo]

Hold on a second.  Have you seen these ads?  None of them has any Hitler references.  They're right there on the website if you haven't viewed them.  Passing judgement on something without seeing it is kinda foolish, wouldn't you agree?

CBS certainly has the right to decide not to run "issue ads".  Heck, I respect their right to just refuse an ad on the basis of poor taste.  But from the way some of the folks on the right have painted these ads you'd think they show George Bush running around waving a machete.  Personally I don't think these are contraversial ... just very good political ads.

I don't find them controversial, just incredibly obvious appeals to the ignorant.  The reason is this - the ad I saw shows a bunch of children working at arduous, low paying jobs, and claims that these are the people who will be 'paying off George Bush's 1 trillion dollar deficit'.  This is obvious garbage as these lower working class people pay no income tax.  Of course the typical viewer is either ignorant of this fact, or is in active denial - hence the ads would probably have been effective.

Umm ... do you need me to send you the income tax tables so you can see how much each group pays.  Every American wage earner pays taxes.  Everyone.

No, many low income people pay no income tax because their income doesn't exceed the personal or family exemptions they qualify for.  In addition to this fact, evenmost middle class people only pay a very small percentage of their income in taxes.  The vast majority the entire federal budget is funded by taxes on the very top portion of income earners - the uppermost end of the 'middle class', and of course primarily the rich.

[NHPolitico]

Has anyone else seen these?  They're on www.bushin30seconds.com

While I certainly respect CBS's right to decide which ads they want to show, I don't find anything particularly contraversial about them.  Yes, they knock Bush ... but that's what political ads are designed to do.  Everyone remembers the HW Bush ads where he blasted Dukakis and painted it that Dukakis was partying with Willie Horton.

Does anyone find these to be especially contraversial ads?  If so, why?

I think the decision was right to not air ads that mention candidate names.  The ad that was banned is actually a good ad. They should have just cut out the part about the debt being Bush's debt. The attribution wasn't necessary. If they want to make the deficit/debt an issue, you want it to be bipartisan/nonpartisan.

[agcatter]

Again, it's just too damn early for general election ads.  Have mercy.

[opebo]

Hold on a second.  Have you seen these ads?  None of them has any Hitler references.  They're right there on the website if you haven't viewed them.  Passing judgement on something without seeing it is kinda foolish, wouldn't you agree?

CBS certainly has the right to decide not to run "issue ads".  Heck, I respect their right to just refuse an ad on the basis of poor taste.  But from the way some of the folks on the right have painted these ads you'd think they show George Bush running around waving a machete.  Personally I don't think these are contraversial ... just very good political ads.

I don't find them controversial, just incredibly obvious appeals to the ignorant.  The reason is this - the ad I saw shows a bunch of children working at arduous, low paying jobs, and claims that these are the people who will be 'paying off George Bush's 1 trillion dollar deficit'.  This is obvious garbage as these lower working class people pay no income tax.  Of course the typical viewer is either ignorant of this fact, or is in active denial - hence the ads would probably have been effective.

So aside from income taxes, no one feels any effect of gigantic, brankrupting levels of defict spending? Pull the other one.

I'm sure if the U.S. defaults on its loan payments, resulting in a massive pullout domestically and internationally from the purchase of government bonds, forcing either: A) Massive tax increases B) Massive program cuts C) A Mostly non-functioning government D) All of the above, the lower-middle class will just be whistling dixie, safe from harm.

Right.

There's no such thing as a tax cut. If you get less money from the tax payer, you have to get more money from the bond purchaser, resulting in an even greater need for taxes in the future. Tax postponement is all you are really getting.  

Not so.  You simply reduce spending - particularly destructive redistributionist transfer payments like medicare.  Alas, Bush is not doing this - in fac the opposite.  Neverytheless, supply side arguments are quite true - even absent a spending reduction, lowering very high taxes will in fact increase economic growth and hence eventual tax collection.  So borrowing for a while is no big deal.  Besides, the deficit is not particularly large or disturbing right now, and there's no danger at all of 'default' or lack of foreign investor confidence.  Least of all is there any danger of deficits effecting interest rates (they never have).

[Nym90]

Destructive redistributionist payments like Medicare...and I suppose Social Security too, right? Sure, why do we need those? If people can't pay for their own health care and well being, let them die, right? I suppose there should be absolutely no obligation on the part of anyone to help anyone else out if they don't want to.

Supply side has been tried and failed. Under Reagan, the deficits went up. Under Bush 43, they've gone up dramatically. Supply side economics does not increase tax revenue, it decreases it. Perhaps if taxes were really "very high" then this would happen. But tax rates in this country are already very low, especially for the wealthy. Cutting taxes for the rich in the 1960s, for example, from a top rate of 91 percent down to 70 percent was beneficial, as 91 percent was too high. But the economy was still quite good with a 70 percent rate on the rich...even with a 91 percent rate, it still wasn't bad, although growth was probably being held back a bit.

Tax cuts for the rich do benefit the economy slightly, but not nearly enough to offset the long term damage to the economy from the higher deficits that they create, and also they are not nearly as beneficial as increasing spending on social programs.

Tax cuts for the poor and middle class, however, do benefit the economy more, and also do much less damage to the deficit. Supply side theory would work better at the lower end of the economic spectrum, since the poor and middle class are much more likely to spend the extra money on purchases that will help the economy. Also, they are much more likely to spend their money domestically as opposed to the wealthy who are much more likely to use the extra money to open a new factory in a country where they can pay everyone $1/hour, or even otherwise to spend it internationally on a foreign vacation or second home, for example. The poor and middle class are much more likely to spend money on such things in the US, and also much more likely in general to spend the money rather than save it because they have more immediate need to spend it.