OT-600 Million Dollars
 

I have read from a couple of sources that the advertising in this
year's presidential contests have exceeded a combined $600 Million.
This to get a job that will pay $1.6 Million + decent benefits (private
use of 747 to start with and having traffic stopped and moved out of
your way whenever you decide to drive to taco bell).

Granted 600 mill would be a drop in the bucket to the deficit but this
is money that does not improve any sector of the economy other than
advertising and radio/tv/newspaper networks. And since those networks
are businesses run for a profit, they sure the hell are not going to
make long term committments to increase employment know the well dries
11/3/04.

It does not become capital for factory startups.
It does not become money for a new businesses and job creations.
It does not lessen the burden on the working poor.
It does not become available for infra-structure improvements.
It does not finance new homes or provide for the rehabilition of older
homes.
It does not provide benefits to the military.
It does not fund research into disease fighting protocols.
It does not fund one new teacher or one new school.

Some will say the funds came from Donations, so what? If the donations
had not been made the money would still be sitting in a bank or
investment account somewhere being used as working capital through
loans or equity.

This is why Tim's everyman cannot become president. do you really think
either party would let a Harry Truman be their lead candidate in the
current environment?
Somehow we have to change this process.


Sorry for the rant.

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

"Wayne Knight" wrote

Somehow we have to change this process.




That is the main thing I've learned from this year too .... the system is
broken

Campaign finance reform and "instant run off voting" that would make third
parties more meaningful, if not more likely to win, would both make major
improvements, imho.

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

"Wayne Knight" wrote

Somehow we have to change this process.




That is the main thing I've learned from this year too .... the system is
broken

Campaign finance reform and "instant run off voting" that would make third
parties more meaningful, if not more likely to win, would both make major
improvements, imho.

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

"Wayne Knight" wrote

Somehow we have to change this process.




That is the main thing I've learned from this year too .... the system is
broken

Campaign finance reform and "instant run off voting" that would make third
parties more meaningful, if not more likely to win, would both make major
improvements, imho.

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

True enough. The main purpose of the excessive advertising is to counter
what the other guy said. It is no longer about getting a message out. It
is a classic arms race of money.

In Pennsylvania, it is unrelenting. As important as the election is, it
will be good to finish it to make the ads stop. In every commercial break
there are now countering ads from each side, and even more.

Having said all that, maybe we could cap what each side can spend, but
limiting the 527s and individuals is likely difficult.

"Wayne Knight" wrote in message
ups.com...
I have read from a couple of sources that the advertising in this
year's presidential contests have exceeded a combined $600 Million.
This to get a job that will pay $1.6 Million + decent benefits (private
use of 747 to start with and having traffic stopped and moved out of
your way whenever you decide to drive to taco bell).

Granted 600 mill would be a drop in the bucket to the deficit but this
is money that does not improve any sector of the economy other than
advertising and radio/tv/newspaper networks. And since those networks
are businesses run for a profit, they sure the hell are not going to
make long term committments to increase employment know the well dries
11/3/04.

It does not become capital for factory startups.
It does not become money for a new businesses and job creations.
It does not lessen the burden on the working poor.
It does not become available for infra-structure improvements.
It does not finance new homes or provide for the rehabilition of older
homes.
It does not provide benefits to the military.
It does not fund research into disease fighting protocols.
It does not fund one new teacher or one new school.

Some will say the funds came from Donations, so what? If the donations
had not been made the money would still be sitting in a bank or
investment account somewhere being used as working capital through
loans or equity.

This is why Tim's everyman cannot become president. do you really think
either party would let a Harry Truman be their lead candidate in the
current environment?
Somehow we have to change this process.


Sorry for the rant.

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

True enough. The main purpose of the excessive advertising is to counter
what the other guy said. It is no longer about getting a message out. It
is a classic arms race of money.

In Pennsylvania, it is unrelenting. As important as the election is, it
will be good to finish it to make the ads stop. In every commercial break
there are now countering ads from each side, and even more.

Having said all that, maybe we could cap what each side can spend, but
limiting the 527s and individuals is likely difficult.

"Wayne Knight" wrote in message
ups.com...
I have read from a couple of sources that the advertising in this
year's presidential contests have exceeded a combined $600 Million.
This to get a job that will pay $1.6 Million + decent benefits (private
use of 747 to start with and having traffic stopped and moved out of
your way whenever you decide to drive to taco bell).

Granted 600 mill would be a drop in the bucket to the deficit but this
is money that does not improve any sector of the economy other than
advertising and radio/tv/newspaper networks. And since those networks
are businesses run for a profit, they sure the hell are not going to
make long term committments to increase employment know the well dries
11/3/04.

It does not become capital for factory startups.
It does not become money for a new businesses and job creations.
It does not lessen the burden on the working poor.
It does not become available for infra-structure improvements.
It does not finance new homes or provide for the rehabilition of older
homes.
It does not provide benefits to the military.
It does not fund research into disease fighting protocols.
It does not fund one new teacher or one new school.

Some will say the funds came from Donations, so what? If the donations
had not been made the money would still be sitting in a bank or
investment account somewhere being used as working capital through
loans or equity.

This is why Tim's everyman cannot become president. do you really think
either party would let a Harry Truman be their lead candidate in the
current environment?
Somehow we have to change this process.


Sorry for the rant.

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

"Wayne Knight" wrote in message
ups.com...
I have read from a couple of sources that the advertising in this
year's presidential contests have exceeded a combined $600 Million.
This to get a job that will pay $1.6 Million + decent benefits (private
use of 747 to start with and having traffic stopped and moved out of
your way whenever you decide to drive to taco bell).


Yeah, with a .05% return on investment, I have often thought anybody willing
to spend the money necessary to get elected in most political contests
doesn't have the sense to do the job required of them!

Jim Ray
And does anybody believe we'll know who "won" the election anytime this
week?

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

"Wayne Knight" wrote in message
ups.com...
I have read from a couple of sources that the advertising in this
year's presidential contests have exceeded a combined $600 Million.
This to get a job that will pay $1.6 Million + decent benefits (private
use of 747 to start with and having traffic stopped and moved out of
your way whenever you decide to drive to taco bell).


Yeah, with a .05% return on investment, I have often thought anybody willing
to spend the money necessary to get elected in most political contests
doesn't have the sense to do the job required of them!

Jim Ray
And does anybody believe we'll know who "won" the election anytime this
week?

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

"Wayne Knight" wrote in message
ups.com...
I have read from a couple of sources that the advertising in this
year's presidential contests have exceeded a combined $600 Million.
This to get a job that will pay $1.6 Million + decent benefits (private
use of 747 to start with and having traffic stopped and moved out of
your way whenever you decide to drive to taco bell).


Yeah, with a .05% return on investment, I have often thought anybody willing
to spend the money necessary to get elected in most political contests
doesn't have the sense to do the job required of them!

Jim Ray
And does anybody believe we'll know who "won" the election anytime this
week?

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

pmfpa wrote:

In Pennsylvania, it is unrelenting. As important as the election is, it
will be good to finish it to make the ads stop. In every commercial break
there are now countering ads from each side, and even more.

In the words of GWB, just turn on the off button.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

pmfpa wrote:

In Pennsylvania, it is unrelenting. As important as the election is, it
will be good to finish it to make the ads stop. In every commercial break
there are now countering ads from each side, and even more.

In the words of GWB, just turn on the off button.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

pmfpa wrote:

In Pennsylvania, it is unrelenting. As important as the election is, it
will be good to finish it to make the ads stop. In every commercial break
there are now countering ads from each side, and even more.

In the words of GWB, just turn on the off button.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

Our mailmen and women will be the happiest people of all when the election
is over.

I'll admit that I was going to vote for a guy from my neighborhood for state
legislature despite his lack of experience. But then he must have gotten a
bunch of PAC money or party money or something (I just can't imagine that he
got much locally) and he's bombarded us with junk mail ever since - about
80% attacks on his opponent, who's been an "ok" representative imo. He
changed my vote but it's probably not what he expected...

bruce h

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

Our mailmen and women will be the happiest people of all when the election
is over.

I'll admit that I was going to vote for a guy from my neighborhood for state
legislature despite his lack of experience. But then he must have gotten a
bunch of PAC money or party money or something (I just can't imagine that he
got much locally) and he's bombarded us with junk mail ever since - about
80% attacks on his opponent, who's been an "ok" representative imo. He
changed my vote but it's probably not what he expected...

bruce h

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

Well, the candidates arent the ones putting up the money in the first place. So
the calculation of
ROI should not be based on what the elected president gets, rather what the
companies backing him
stand to earn after he is elected.

Jim wrote:

"Wayne Knight" wrote in message
ups.com...
I have read from a couple of sources that the advertising in this
year's presidential contests have exceeded a combined $600 Million.
This to get a job that will pay $1.6 Million + decent benefits (private
use of 747 to start with and having traffic stopped and moved out of
your way whenever you decide to drive to taco bell).


Yeah, with a .05% return on investment, I have often thought anybody willing
to spend the money necessary to get elected in most political contests
doesn't have the sense to do the job required of them!

Jim Ray
And does anybody believe we'll know who "won" the election anytime this
week?

--

Svend

************************************************** ***************
Svend Tang-Petersen, MSc Email: svend AT sgi.com
SGI Pager: svend_p AT pager.sgi.com
1500 Crittenden Lane Phone: (+1) 650 933 3618
Mountain View
California 94043
USA
MS 30-2-526
************************************************** ***************

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

Svend Tang-Petersen wrote:

Well, the candidates arent the ones putting up the money in the first place. So
the calculation of
ROI should not be based on what the elected president gets, rather what the
companies backing him
stand to earn after he is elected.

Good point. Halliburton's ROI on the last election is through the roof.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

Svend Tang-Petersen wrote:

Well, the candidates arent the ones putting up the money in the first place. So
the calculation of
ROI should not be based on what the elected president gets, rather what the
companies backing him
stand to earn after he is elected.

Good point. Halliburton's ROI on the last election is through the roof.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 20:18:48 -0700, rw
wrote:

Svend Tang-Petersen wrote:

Well, the candidates arent the ones putting up the money in the first place. So
the calculation of
ROI should not be based on what the elected president gets, rather what the
companies backing him
stand to earn after he is elected.

Good point. Halliburton's ROI on the last election is through the roof.

And you *know* we ain't seen nothin' yet....

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 20:18:48 -0700, rw
wrote:

Svend Tang-Petersen wrote:

Well, the candidates arent the ones putting up the money in the first place. So
the calculation of
ROI should not be based on what the elected president gets, rather what the
companies backing him
stand to earn after he is elected.

Good point. Halliburton's ROI on the last election is through the roof.

And you *know* we ain't seen nothin' yet....

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 20:18:48 -0700, rw
wrote:

Svend Tang-Petersen wrote:

Well, the candidates arent the ones putting up the money in the first place. So
the calculation of
ROI should not be based on what the elected president gets, rather what the
companies backing him
stand to earn after he is elected.

Good point. Halliburton's ROI on the last election is through the roof.

And you *know* we ain't seen nothin' yet....

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

they're gonna let you into hilton head? i'd suggest you look to the
inlets and salt marshes (take your kayak) rather than hh's surf...

congrats to dene...

Joe McIntosh wrote:



Heading to Hilton Head tomorrow AM---Dene"s tennis team came in second in
State Championships in Pinehurst last weekend so the wives are treating us
[we?-hell i went to Maryland] husbands to a weekend in and oceanfront
villa... Now we won"t have to talk politics and I can stand in surf and
sling flies out looking for a lone bluefish.

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

they're gonna let you into hilton head? i'd suggest you look to the
inlets and salt marshes (take your kayak) rather than hh's surf...

congrats to dene...

Joe McIntosh wrote:



Heading to Hilton Head tomorrow AM---Dene"s tennis team came in second in
State Championships in Pinehurst last weekend so the wives are treating us
[we?-hell i went to Maryland] husbands to a weekend in and oceanfront
villa... Now we won"t have to talk politics and I can stand in surf and
sling flies out looking for a lone bluefish.

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

"Jeff Miller" wrote in message
news:Y7Khd.88718$kz3.57620@fed1read02...
spending in the war against terror has resulted in an expected $377
billion shortfall for 2003 - the highest deficit since World War II
accounting for inflation. The total U.S. national debt is near the $7.4
trillion statutory limit.

other than murdering thousands of innocents, the incredible ease with
which our president turned a budget surplus into a canyon of debt is the
most appalling characteristic of this president. i'd vote for alfred e.
neuman before i'd align myself or my vote for such a person.

jeff



IJ says ----sorry to say I think this election is based on a vote against
one candidate rather than FOR a candidate they think would make a good
president.
to bad the democrats could not produce an electable prospect-- we would
have had a new bossman announced tomorrow.

Heading to Hilton Head tomorrow AM---Dene"s tennis team came in second in
State Championships in Pinehurst last weekend so the wives are treating us
[we?-hell i went to Maryland] husbands to a weekend in and oceanfront
villa... Now we won"t have to talk politics and I can stand in surf and
sling flies out looking for a lone bluefish.

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

"Jeff Miller" wrote in message
news:Y7Khd.88718$kz3.57620@fed1read02...
spending in the war against terror has resulted in an expected $377
billion shortfall for 2003 - the highest deficit since World War II
accounting for inflation. The total U.S. national debt is near the $7.4
trillion statutory limit.

other than murdering thousands of innocents, the incredible ease with
which our president turned a budget surplus into a canyon of debt is the
most appalling characteristic of this president. i'd vote for alfred e.
neuman before i'd align myself or my vote for such a person.

jeff



IJ says ----sorry to say I think this election is based on a vote against
one candidate rather than FOR a candidate they think would make a good
president.
to bad the democrats could not produce an electable prospect-- we would
have had a new bossman announced tomorrow.

Heading to Hilton Head tomorrow AM---Dene"s tennis team came in second in
State Championships in Pinehurst last weekend so the wives are treating us
[we?-hell i went to Maryland] husbands to a weekend in and oceanfront
villa... Now we won"t have to talk politics and I can stand in surf and
sling flies out looking for a lone bluefish.

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 06:13:35 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:
[snipped]
"Assholes get elected, 'cuz assholes get to vote"*

Wolfgang
*"Assholes on Parade"-Pat MacDonald

"I'm surrounded by assholes!" -Dark Helmut

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 06:13:35 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:
[snipped]
"Assholes get elected, 'cuz assholes get to vote"*

Wolfgang
*"Assholes on Parade"-Pat MacDonald

"I'm surrounded by assholes!" -Dark Helmut

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

I have read from a couple of sources that the advertising in this
year's presidential contests have exceeded a combined $600 Million.
This to get a job that will pay $1.6 Million +..........

First, the "profits" from that investment go far, far, beyond that.

Second, it is not a lot of money per citizen.

Third, far greater sums -- Billions, not merely millions-- are spent
on commercial advertising to persuade us that Bud is better than
Millers, that Millers is better than Bud, that Marlboros are better
than Camels, that Camels are better than Marlboros, that no one will
love you if you don't rub this or that under your arms, and for other
extremely trivial purposes.

How come no one gets excited about that?

vince

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...

How come no one gets excited about that?

I don't drink Buds nor Millers and don't smoke Marlboros nor Camels.

But seriously, the folks that pay for that commercial have to answer to a
board of directors and shareholders. And in your specific example you won't
find commercials over the air for cigarettes and alcohol advertising does
have some boundaries.

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...

How come no one gets excited about that?

I don't drink Buds nor Millers and don't smoke Marlboros nor Camels.

But seriously, the folks that pay for that commercial have to answer to a
board of directors and shareholders. And in your specific example you won't
find commercials over the air for cigarettes and alcohol advertising does
have some boundaries.

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...

How come no one gets excited about that?

I don't drink Buds nor Millers and don't smoke Marlboros nor Camels.

But seriously, the folks that pay for that commercial have to answer to a
board of directors and shareholders. And in your specific example you won't
find commercials over the air for cigarettes and alcohol advertising does
have some boundaries.

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

"Wayne Knight" wrote in message
...

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...

How come no one gets excited about that?

I don't drink Buds nor Millers and don't smoke Marlboros nor Camels.

But seriously, the folks that pay for that commercial have to answer to a
board of directors and shareholders.

Well, the putative point of today's little exercise is that the folks who
benefit from political ads......and by extension, those who pay for
them.....are answerable to someone too. Debatable, to be sure, but an
interesting point of view, nevertheless.

And in your specific example you won't
find commercials over the air for cigarettes and alcohol advertising does
have some boundaries.

Political advertising has boundaries as well. Try to imagine, for instance,
someone hiring.......oh......say, ME to run their campaign ads.

Wolfgang
who notes that one does not see many ads opposed to the mass murder of
innocents abroad.

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

"Wayne Knight" wrote in message
...

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...

How come no one gets excited about that?

I don't drink Buds nor Millers and don't smoke Marlboros nor Camels.

But seriously, the folks that pay for that commercial have to answer to a
board of directors and shareholders.

Well, the putative point of today's little exercise is that the folks who
benefit from political ads......and by extension, those who pay for
them.....are answerable to someone too. Debatable, to be sure, but an
interesting point of view, nevertheless.

And in your specific example you won't
find commercials over the air for cigarettes and alcohol advertising does
have some boundaries.

Political advertising has boundaries as well. Try to imagine, for instance,
someone hiring.......oh......say, ME to run their campaign ads.

Wolfgang
who notes that one does not see many ads opposed to the mass murder of
innocents abroad.

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

Wolfgang wrote:


Wolfgang
who notes that one does not see many ads opposed to the mass murder of
innocents abroad.




.......or in favor of those much closer to home, who are much more deserving..........
The fuel savings alone would seem to justify that.... Yep, let's kill the close-in
crowd, first. We gotta kill *somebody*, right?


--
Tom

n4tab at earthlink dot net

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

"a-happy-up-yours" wrote in
message .net...
Wolfgang wrote:


Wolfgang
who notes that one does not see many ads opposed to the mass murder of
innocents abroad.


......or in favor of those much closer to home, who are much more
deserving.......... The fuel savings alone would seem to justify that....
Yep, let's kill the close-in crowd, first. We gotta kill *somebody*,
right?

Excellent point. The fuel savings WOULD be enormous......but they would
pale by comparison to the improvement in America's image abroad.

"Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset"*

Wolfgang
*Often attributed to Innocent III. Actually, the papal legate Amaury. See,
for example, "The Devil: A Biography", Peter Stanford, Henry Holt and
Company, 1996, p.141.

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

"a-happy-up-yours" wrote in
message .net...
Wolfgang wrote:


Wolfgang
who notes that one does not see many ads opposed to the mass murder of
innocents abroad.


......or in favor of those much closer to home, who are much more
deserving.......... The fuel savings alone would seem to justify that....
Yep, let's kill the close-in crowd, first. We gotta kill *somebody*,
right?

Excellent point. The fuel savings WOULD be enormous......but they would
pale by comparison to the improvement in America's image abroad.

"Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset"*

Wolfgang
*Often attributed to Innocent III. Actually, the papal legate Amaury. See,
for example, "The Devil: A Biography", Peter Stanford, Henry Holt and
Company, 1996, p.141.

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

But seriously, the folks that pay for that commercial have to answer to a
board of directors and shareholders.

If you want to be serious, the folks who really pay for those
commercials are YOU and everyone else who buys the advertised
products.

I've been retired for ten years and can't cite current numbers, but
it's safe to say that commercial advertising's media expenditures
alone cost something like two thousand dollars per family per year.

To add insult to that injury, you not only pay pay higher prices for
the advertised products, to cover the cost of the ads, but you pay an
even higher price made posssible by the advertising.

In case that's unclear, what I mean is this: A firm takes a product
that sells as a generic or a private lable for one dollar, spends
fifty cents to advertise it, and raises the price to two dollars.

And in your specific example you won't find commercials over the air for
cigarettes and alcohol advertising does have some boundaries.

I know that, but I thought we were discussing economic waste. The
number you cited as the amount spent on political ads included print
media expenditures, not just broadcast ads.

vince

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

vincent p. norris wrote:

If you want to be serious, the folks who really pay for those
commercials are YOU and everyone else who buys the advertised
products.

I am deadly serious. While I recognize and respect your background, the
other obvious caveat to private industry marketing and the associated
mark up of products, is that I have a choice to buy the item or not.

I've been retired for ten years and can't cite current numbers, but
it's safe to say that commercial advertising's media expenditures
alone cost something like two thousand dollars per family per year.

I think you're close.

[snip]

I know that, but I thought we were discussing economic waste. The
number you cited as the amount spent on political ads included print
media expenditures, not just broadcast ads.

At the end of the day, *normal* advertising in theory is to increase
sales which in theory results in more production which begats more
workers to fulfill the production (I know with beer it gets muddy). In
politics, IMO, there is no long term benefit to the economy and again,
IMO, a sure sign that the system is broken given the moneys spent. But
ya gotta buy them votes somehow.

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

vincent p. norris wrote:

If you want to be serious, the folks who really pay for those
commercials are YOU and everyone else who buys the advertised
products.

I am deadly serious. While I recognize and respect your background, the
other obvious caveat to private industry marketing and the associated
mark up of products, is that I have a choice to buy the item or not.

I've been retired for ten years and can't cite current numbers, but
it's safe to say that commercial advertising's media expenditures
alone cost something like two thousand dollars per family per year.

I think you're close.

[snip]

I know that, but I thought we were discussing economic waste. The
number you cited as the amount spent on political ads included print
media expenditures, not just broadcast ads.

At the end of the day, *normal* advertising in theory is to increase
sales which in theory results in more production which begats more
workers to fulfill the production (I know with beer it gets muddy). In
politics, IMO, there is no long term benefit to the economy and again,
IMO, a sure sign that the system is broken given the moneys spent. But
ya gotta buy them votes somehow.

OT-600 Million Dollars
 

At the end of the day, *normal* advertising in theory is to increase
sales which in theory results in more production which begats more
workers to fulfill the production

Not sure what you mean by "normal." The primary purpose of "national'
advertising (which really means the advertising done by manufacturers,
as distinct from retail advertising) is to enable them to charge
higher prices than would be possible under price competition. This is
made abundantly clear by the writings of those who "invented" national
advertising at the end of the 19th century, as well as by current
statements and other evidence. E.g., advertised brands are, almost
without exception, higher in price than identical but unadvertised
private labels and generics.

Now, once that purpose has been achieved, then manufacturers strive to
increase market share, but only at the higher price. But it is a
zero-sum game, because abundant evidence indicates that advertising
does not increase the primary demand for a product--that is, the total
amount of beer, cigarets, soap, etc., sold. If one firm gains market
share, others lose it.

As nutty as this sounds to someone who hasn't studied economics, this
actually results in a lower volume of sales than would occur at the
lower prices. Consequently, employment levels are lower, not higher,
as a result of national aldvertising.

Just one example: Years ago, during a Senate investigation of the
automobile industry, the UAW presented evidence from several
published econometric analyses that showed that many more cars would
be sold at the lower prices that would exist in the absence of
advertising, resulting in significanntly higher employment in the car
factories.

But PROFITS would be lower, so obviously the car makers would not do
that. In short, national advertisers make higher profits by selling
less.

If you want details, I can dig out the data and also the Sudoc number
of the Senate report.

In politics, IMO, there is no long term benefit to the economy....

Its purpose is to benefit the polity, not the economy. Most
economists would argue there are no long term (or short term) benefits
to the economy from national advertising, either.

Retail advertising is a different matter entirely, and serves a useful
purpose.

vince