31 Mar 22
@jimm619 saidUhh, it has to do with business transactions. Joint ventures, pro formas, contractual arrangements, IPO's, such as that. There are many steps, involving a lot of investors, lawyers, etc.
If they got the money, why can they
not build their own stadium?
I would have to pay for my own hamburger stand.
They do have money, but they may be investing in other businesses and can not put it all into any one of the businesses. Plus, this stadium may just be a childhood dream, or he wants to see his name on the stadium. Like you said, it is his money, he can do what he wants to with it. I guess I'm not following you here.
31 Mar 22
@suzianne saidWell enough, but can you respond to my question? You mention obscene riches, Howard is big-time rich. So, you either think he should not be successful and rich, OR, the only alternative is, you think it is OK that he is rich with Starbucks.
I'm not talking about Starbucks, fool.
You're defending the corporate welfare amounting to hundreds of millions, while whining about a poor family getting to eat this week.
If you think the former, that he should not be, what would be an agreeable route that Howard should have taken along the way. This is a fair question, how else can we jehaw? We are different, I love the Howards of the world, I love success. Do you or do you not love successful people, regardless their wealth? Or, do you love their succsss but want to curtail it?
31 Mar 22
@jimm619 saidYou answer your own question, " if ".
If they got the money, why can they
not build their own stadium?
I would have to pay for my own hamburger stand.
Also note that they, the corporations, will always go where there are the most incentives. Not sure how to stop that, but if you, as mayor, wanted them to generate big bucks in your electorate, what would you do? watch them take their money elsewhere?
If they, the officials, have done their homework, everyone should be better off.
31 Mar 22
@suzianne saidsigh. if you had your way it would simply be a different group of people routinely screwing as many Americans as possible.
No. If we had our way, corporations and politicians and obscenely rich people wouldn't routinely screw as many Americans as they can get away with.
This is more "exceptionalism", like white people crying that they are losing their freedom. What utter BS.
And the stadium is pure corporate welfare. Defended by the same people (you) who say that the poor get all the handouts.
Exceptionalism, what the?? what utter BS.
31 Mar 22
@suzianne saidYawn.
Because you are a Republican apologist.
Most corrupt politicians are Republicans.
No, not all, but if you are corrupt, chances are that you are a Republican. They are all in bed with those with the bucks. The obscenely rich buy what they want from Washington.
They've corrupted even good democrats like Kyrsten Sinema.
Did you ever see Mr. Smith Goes to Washington?
31 Mar 22
@averagejoe1 saidIt is not free enterprise though is it you halfwit, it’s publicly funded enterprise and that money should be paid back to the public purse and only after that can the other shareholders make a profit.
If you fellers had your way, there wojld be no free enterprise, and no capitalism. THE PEOPLE would own and share in the profits. Should run like clockwork, Wildgrass. You truly hate capitalism, you want to punish success. The rich guy makes a proposal to the city, proves it will be good for both sides. I think that is what I just read. So, I don't know what you ...[text shortened]... r, are you just mad?
And the stadium gambit has nothing to do with the welfare you wrote about.
Private enterprise is fund ex by private funds that’s why we call it private enterprise🙄
31 Mar 22
@kevcvs57 saidThe rational "is" that it "will" be paid back into the public purse + interest. That is why the monies where given, ok, an "investment" by the state. Not saying that the public investment was a good one but that would be the intention. But you lot can continue with your rationals, facts ain't gonna change some peoples minds.
It is not free enterprise though is it you halfwit, it’s publicly funded enterprise and that money should be paid back to the public purse and only after that can the other shareholders make a profit.
Private enterprise is fund ex by private funds that’s why we call it private enterprise🙄
@jimmac saidWell if it’s paid back with interest plus the boost it gives the local economy then I do not see a problem with it.
The rational "is" that it "will" be paid back into the public purse + interest. That is why the monies where given, ok, an "investment" by the state. Not saying that the public investment was a good one but that would be the intention. But you lot can continue with your rationals, facts ain't gonna change some peoples minds.
It’s just a shame ‘you lot’ cannot see that it’s worth investing in local people who will pay the public purse back with interest through the tax system and boost the local economy with their consumption if given some support to get back into work rather than being left to spiral into dysfunctional levels of poverty and alienation.
@kevcvs57 saidJust a little question, how many short term and how many long term " workers " jobs ( for the local people ) do you suspect that these massive projects create? I honestly have no idea but suspect quite a few.
Well if it’s paid back with interest plus the boost it gives the local economy then I do not see a problem with it.
It’s just a shame ‘you lot’ cannot see that it’s worth investing in local people who will pay the public purse back with interest through the tax system and boost the local economy with their consumption if given some support to get back into work rather than being left to spiral into dysfunctional levels of poverty and alienation.
@jimmac saidThe main advantage in the short term is probably the new entry level apprentice jobs that are created but long term probably the same as before the build if it’s a replacement stadium, but a newer shinier stadium might bring in a lot more passing trade for the local economy especially if it’s a multi use stadium as most new stadiums are.
Just a little question, how many short term and how many long term " workers " jobs ( for the local people ) do you suspect that these massive projects create? I honestly have no idea but suspect quite a few.
I wouldn’t have much of an idea of the figures but I’d assume the owners and their financiers would have thrown some figures out there.
@suzianne said"Because you are a Republican apologist."
Because you are a Republican apologist.
Most corrupt politicians are Republicans.
No, not all, but if you are corrupt, chances are that you are a Republican. They are all in bed with those with the bucks. The obscenely rich buy what they want from Washington.
They've corrupted even good democrats like Kyrsten Sinema.
Did you ever see Mr. Smith Goes to Washington?
LOL...posted in a thread about a DEMOCRAT governors actions
Libs leave out inconvenient facts.
A rich guy thinks about a stadium. He can buy a yacht like Putin's if he wants to. A sharp real estate broker goes to the City, who would like a new stadium (reasons irrelevant), and puts the two parties together. City, who was ELECTED by the CITIZENS to spend their money, decides to beg the rich guy to pitch in. Rich guy decides he can make big-time money, which you fellers, I think, feel to be unholy or something....hell, we don't know WHAT your problem is.
So, all parties are doing fine, and the parties do not have to 'shaaaaaaare' the profits with all the minions who go to ball games. There is no connection. If you are on the city board you could suggest getting that, but the rich guy could just walk. Next you will say, and you all have said, the rich guy should not have all that money, so you just take it?
I truly do not find fault with the deal, and your reasoning above leaves out common sense. That of the city, if they want a stadium, and that of the guy who wants to make money. Marxism would not work in the scenario, I just hate it.
31 Mar 22
@averagejoe1 saidIt's not his money Joe. He's taking it from taxpayers to fund his stadium.
Uhh, it has to do with business transactions. Joint ventures, pro formas, contractual arrangements, IPO's, such as that. There are many steps, involving a lot of investors, lawyers, etc.
They do have money, but they may be investing in other businesses and can not put it all into any one of the businesses. Plus, this stadium may just be a childhood dream, or he wan ...[text shortened]... you said, it is his money, he can do what he wants to with it. I guess I'm not following you here.
31 Mar 22
@jimmac saidThere are a plethora of economic studies done on these stadium deals, and nearly all of them point to zero or very little positive economic impact. Keep in mind the stadium currently exists, but the owner wants to build a newer one with bigger luxury boxes for his rich friends. Once the dust settles on construction, the only benefit goes to the owner but the citizens are stuck with higher sales taxes for decades.
While I do not doubt there is corruption, it is not obviously a scam. I suspect that the return on the investment for the county would be big indeed. The jobs that they create are great, in the building and into the future. And the flow on effects of having a stadium in your back yard, fantastic. This takes money from the rich ( those that can afford to go and even pay for acc ...[text shortened]... he poor.
I repeat, not an obvious scam. Not saying it is not. There are even corrupt republicans.
31 Mar 22
@mott-the-hoople saidI didn't read the OP as "blaming conservatives". I think he's trying to figure out why conservatives generally support these deals.
liberal logic 101
only in the mind of a liberal can a DEMOCRAT governor do something and the liberal blames conservatives...comical