Guest EXPAT Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 The Super Bowl advertising has sold out, with most spots going for $3.5 million/30seconds, but one spot went for a record $4 million. The car manufacturers are back with a vengeance this year, and a very high percentage of commercials will actually be 60-second super blocks rather than the traditional 30 seconds. But I guess this show does have the largest TV audience of the year by far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lucky Posted January 5, 2012 Members Share Posted January 5, 2012 For me, it only proves the point on the recession. Folks cannot afford to go out, so they stay home and watch stupid games on the telly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiBottomBoy Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 It's because the 1 percent with money have a shitload of money. All the ads will be for super high end products. The International Herald Tribune was having trouble filling up ad space last year. But over the past six months they've filled it up well - all with ads for $100,000 watches and $250,000 cars. The rich are richer than ever before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RA1 Posted January 5, 2012 Members Share Posted January 5, 2012 It's because the 1 percent with money have a shitload of money. All the ads will be for super high end products. The International Herald Tribune was having trouble filling up ad space last year. But over the past six months they've filled it up well - all with ads for $100,000 watches and $250,000 cars. The rich are richer than ever before. True enough but do we have to "take it away from them" or provide more opportunities for the rest of us? Best regards, RA1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiBottomBoy Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Why can't we do both and take some of their money and use it to create jobs and infrastructure for the rest of us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CharliePS Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 The argument that the Republicans always make for not taxing the rich is that they use the money to create jobs. Well, we kept reducing taxes on the rich for the past decade: what happened to the jobs? Oh, they keep their money sitting in the banks, which won't lend it to create jobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EXPAT Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 325,000 jobs created in December according to ADP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RA1 Posted January 5, 2012 Members Share Posted January 5, 2012 Why can't we do both and take some of their money and use it to create jobs and infrastructure for the rest of us? Generally speaking, infrastructure is a proper venue in which the federal government should participate. However, job creation should more properly be left to private enterprise. That does not mean, according to me, that the wealthy should not have constraints but forfeiture of income is not high on the list. In other words, restricting various practices and policies of banks, investment companies, etc. is not beyond the pale. However, a tax rate of say 91% as we had in the 50's is not going to help anyone. There must be some reason involved. I know that is a radical concept. Best regards, RA1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
