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?

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
************************************************** ***************

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.

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....

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....

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....

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.