Would not this be a more practical way to fund the war instead of lying to the taxpayers?

I have no problem funding the war in that way, but who lied. Saddam, his sons? Thier are more people in the white House than the president. The president did'nt lie and if he did oh well. The war was a good thing. Long overdue. And another thing who would see the advertisement, the Enemy and our troops? I doubt anyone would go for it. Just my opinion.

You want to let corporations sponsor American military machines because you don't want taxpayers to be LIED to? So these corporations are better models of integrity than our government...ok, they may be a little bit...but do you think they won't pass the savings of this type of ad campaign on to the consumers?

It is too bad that you feel your source of information lied to you. They should have just directed you to perform a simple Google search for Public Law 108-11, also known as the "Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act". Then you could have read for yourself how everything was funded and you could even examine the voting record for your specific elected leaders in the house and senate. All the information is readily available.

To answer your question, no. Advertising executives would not see this as a good use of money since their names and products would only be visible during take off and landing. Democrats and Republicans would surely begin bickering over the ad rate cost structure. Republicans would want a flat ad rate regardless of aircraft and certain companies would get fat discounts. The Republicans would use the revenue to purchase more equipment, thus increasing the ad space availability. Democrats would want a 43 tier rate system based on branch of service, number of engines, combat or support role, land based versus carrier based, and potential for foreign deployment tapping into overseas markets. There would be an additional surcharge for stealth aircraft. The Democrats would use the proceeds to fund a new department created to oversee the ad sales and for citrus crop subsidies in Alaska. Every year the Democrats would raise the ad rates until most companies cancelled their ad contracts.

It just wouldn't be worth the effort!

NASCAR will still be a better place for product placement, especially in light of a number of news sources already identifying the voting block coined as "NASCAR Dads" as being critical in the next presidential election.

I believe you have missed the point. The message here is; Why not let the corporations who stand to profit from war, pay for the war.

And the counterpoint has been made...
1) consumers would end up paying for the war anyway because of buying the corporations' products
2) corporations wouldn't advertise this way because there would not be enough exposure of their name to justify the cost of the advertising.

Your point was to take a shot at the government for going to war...that's fine, but it is cliche. Let's not kid ourselves and equate dissention with creativity.

"I believe you have missed the point. The message here is; Why not let the corporations who stand to profit from war, pay for the war."

Cristatodd, I guess I missed the point also??
Who Profits from a War? I'm a little lost here with this one Sorry!!!

Hog

I can assure you the entity who DOESN'T profit from the war is the one who has to fight it..........i.e., the soldier. He is the last one who wants to see war, but he is the first who has to go, not because he wants to, not because he has a vested interest in it, but because he is ordered to do so.

usahog

who profits? try
Carlyle Group Inc., a private equity firm whose senior executives include former U.S. cabinet members and ex-President George H.W. Bush, has turned a $180-million 1997 investment in United Defense Industries Inc. into $1.2 billion

Rick,

Since the Carlyle Group has not sold UDI, I'm not too sure they have actually realized those gains you claim.
After all, what they do is buy companies, fix them up, and sell them. Although their client list is not open to anyone like a mutual fund, you can follow along with their investments and vast holdings and take advantage of their expertise as well. They own somewhere in the area of 160 companies and still are only considered the 11th largest defense contractor. It sounds like diversification, not profiting from war.
I wonder how they've done in the last 6 months across all their holdings, not since 1997.

The conspiracy theorists originally picked up on the Carlyle Group because one of their clients was the Bin Laden family, not because of the Iraq War. The conspiracy theorists did not pick up on the fact that many of the company's clients were state pension funds.
For example, the California Public Employee's Retirement System was a $305 million investor. Darn Californians profiting from war.

If you want to get in on the Carlyle Group act, they seem to have a great deal of holdings in business office parks. Many are San Fran/Silicon Valley. Perhaps they know something about when the real estate market will be coming back.

They also own 7-Up and Dr Pepper. Do they know something about Pepsi and Coke that we don't?

They own Air Cargo and Gemini Air Cargo. Is something wrong with UPS? I've seen pictures of the UPS delivery girl and everything seems fine to me.

They own the Chicago Marriott and the Orlando Peabody. I don't think the hotel industry has done too well lately.

They own "Entertainment Publications". You know those little coupon books everyone sells for fund raisers.

Let's boycott all these.

Any war is a net drain on the economy. I'm confident most businesses could show a direct loss as a result of the war. That is the price everyone pays. I suspect it will be very difficult to find companies with a balloon effect in their earnings and profits this year due to the Iraq War. War hasn't been very profitable in a long time. That is why so many defense contractors have been bought, sold, merged, and vanished. It looks like Carlyle Group thinks business real estate is the way to go.