- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
31 Mar 22
@mott-the-hoople saidWho blames Conservatives?
liberal logic 101
only in the mind of a liberal can a DEMOCRAT governor do something and the liberal blames conservatives...comical
Is that mentioned....AT ALL?/
..........What a maroon.
Crazy. What if the bakery down the street was given $100,000 a year in your hard earned tax dollars just to bake croissants every morning? Would conservatives support that deal just because it "benefits the economy"?
Just to be really really clear to the anti-capitalists defending stadium deals, they do not benefit the economy. Here's a recent paper, but there is solid economic data on this going back decades...
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4022547
Yet Republicans and Democrats alike support these deals. They can't agree on anything except wasting tax dollars on billionaires. Why?
Extortion.
The decision makers are politicians doing political calculus. The franchise owners, who control the emotion of a rabid fan base, have the ability to move if the local government does not give them money. Sheesh, the Bills already receive $13 billion per year from taxpayers just for maintenance. Do you think a local restaurant gets that when the fryer goes out? No. But politicians don't want to be the one who let the Bills move to Maine, where that governor gave them money for the luxury suites. The business owners blackmail the politicians over their own careers. It's a bipartisan policy.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
31 Mar 22
@wildgrass saidThree times the voters of San Francisco, went to the city,
There 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.
to seek public financing for their baseball park.
Three times the the voters refused....
Guess what??.....S.F has one of the most successful N.L franchisee
in Major League history.
31 Mar 22
@wildgrass saidDon't get you. He is not putting his money, which is his money he has earned over 40 years, into the stadium.?? Please explain, and I will revise my paragraph above.
It's not his money Joe. He's taking it from taxpayers to fund his stadium.
@wildgrass saidI get your first sentence above, little economic impact, but that is not my point. My point is building the thing after all the great thinkers of the City and the moneyed investors have discussed it and took a chance on it. Yes, may be a crap shoot. May be bad advisors, whatever.
There 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.
So if it is not a good enterprise, everyone loses. That is business.
The rich guy leaves, writes it off, whatever, maybe bankrupts, and the city deals with their loss. The city council may catch hell from their taxpayers.
Now, how else would a city get a stadium if they did not go this route? Are you saying they should not deal with the rich guy? Or, Are you saying the rich guy should go all-in with his money and be a nice guy? Put his life savings in, build a stadium to the specs of a bunch of libs who know nothing of business? Split all the money up as you suggest?
31 Mar 22
@averagejoe1 said
I get your first sentence above, little economic impact, but that is not my point. My point is building the thing after all the great thinkers of the City and the moneyed investors have discussed it and took a chance on it. Yes, may be a crap shoot. May be bad advisors, whatever.
So if it is not a good enterprise, everyone loses. That is business.
The rich guy ...[text shortened]... to the specs of a bunch of libs who know nothing of business? Split all the money up as you suggest?
Or, Are you saying the rich guy should go all-in with his money and be a nice guy?
I am saying the rich guy should decide whether it is worth investing his money to build a new stadium where his privately-owned team can play or continue to use the perfectly functional one that currently exists. Business funded by tax payers isn't capitalism.
"Crony capitalism, sometimes called Cronyism, is an economic system in which businesses thrive not as a result of free enterprise, but rather as a return on money amassed through collusion between a business class and the political class."
@wildgrass saidMissed this earlier. I think most of your comments travel under a liberal point of view that there is 'some' obligation of the rich guy. Moral obligation, or from each according to their abilities, whatever.. Of course, to get the taxpayers' money, rich guy has to perform, but then, he may not perform at all, and not want the money...he sails away on his yacht. There is no obligation here, just a choice.
Crazy. What if the bakery down the street was given $100,000 a year in your hard earned tax dollars just to bake croissants every morning? Would conservatives support that deal just because it "benefits the economy"?
Just to be really really clear to the anti-capitalists defending stadium deals, they do not benefit the economy. Here's a recent paper, but there is solid e ...[text shortened]... tes. The business owners blackmail the politicians over their own careers. It's a bipartisan policy.
You and I are not in the room, but for some reason the council wants the rich guy in there. He will say what is in it for me. (you prob subconciously used that phrase today). Greed, right. So, they hammer out something that works for everyone, but at the end of the day, libs go absolutely nuts about what THEIR council has decided to do. SO , why write the Forum? Write the people who made these decisions. All of these posts, BTW, stipulate that all activities are done legally.
All due respects, I really don't know the end game for you. What do you want to happen in this scenario, assuming you don'y want to punish this successful rich billionaire. How else would you do all this?
31 Mar 22
There is that movie line..Michael Douglas, Wall Street...."Greed Is Good". I don't pretend to comment on that, but I will tell you this...This country needs rich people. Today huge taxation was announced to punish the rich. Yes, they will pay a few million, but shelter the rest, and in the end, the lower class will suffer. Many studies, since the dawn of income tax, have come to this conclusion.
You have heard that $350 billion is what will be raised. That is the equivalent of the interest on our national debt. But that is all. And, oh, that is the last place you can go for money. The ole Golde Goose gambit. Poof!
@averagejoe1 saidNo one is saying greed is not good (at least on this thread).
There is that movie line..Michael Douglas, Wall Street...."Greed Is Good". I don't pretend to comment on that, but I will tell you this...This country needs rich people. Today huge taxation was announced to punish the rich. Yes, they will pay a few million, but shelter the rest, and in the end, the lower class will suffer. Many studies, since the dawn of income tax, ...[text shortened]... is all. And, oh, that is the last place you can go for money. The ole Golde Goose gambit. Poof!
Tax dollars here (lots and lots of tax dollars) are being spent on a billionaires vanity project that will not benefit the local economy. That's the problem you seem to be fine with.
You often complain on these forums about $50 million spent on education. Fine. Maybe all education should be private. But the tax dollars here are 20X higher than that (will be more than $1 billion at the end of the day), and it's being given to one person to fund his stadium for his team and the revenue will go to him and the economic impact reports show the benefits to the local economy are negligible. You justify support of that sweetheart deal by saying "well I'm sure those guys in government know what they're doing?"
Seriously?
01 Apr 22
@wildgrass saidI did not say exactly that they 'know what they are doing, ' or mean to imply that they know best. I am saying your elected council has been told they can decide how to hand out money. That is a lot different. I agree with you ,, of course, I would rather do better things with the money.
No one is saying greed is not good (at least on this thread).
Tax dollars here (lots and lots of tax dollars) are being spent on a billionaires vanity project that will not benefit the local economy. That's the problem you seem to be fine with.
You often complain on these forums about $50 million spent on education. Fine. Maybe all education should be private. But the ...[text shortened]... eart deal by saying "well I'm sure those guys in government know what they're doing?"
Seriously?
I am first to say stop sweetheart deals.....again, I don't know their thinking, but it seems to suck. If the Mayor of Mayberry wants a new ball field, he likely would call on Mr Moneypenny who lives on top of the hill, and, by hook,, not crook,, he would get the rich guy involved. Wouldn't he? Where does one draw a line?
We both know the rich guy would get involved, but Wildgrass, he likely won't do it for free, except in wonderful circumstances of pure philanthropy.
I am just being a realist.
01 Apr 22
@averagejoe1 said"Know what they are doing" and "hammer out something that works for everyone" is pretty much the same... Backroom deal between a politician and a very profitable business to transfer wealth from middle class tax payers to wealthy billionaires. It works well for the politician and the billionaire, not so much for you and me.
I did not say exactly that they 'know what they are doing, ' or mean to imply that they know best. I am saying your elected council has been told they can decide how to hand out money. That is a lot different. I agree with you ,, of course, I would rather do better things with the money.
I am first to say stop sweetheart deals.....again, I don't know their thinkin ...[text shortened]... o it for free, except in wonderful circumstances of pure philanthropy.
I am just being a realist.
As Jim mentioned earlier, it does not need to be this way. Some states have ballot initiatives that are voted on. Give people a say in the matter. Most of the time when this happens the people say "build it on your own dime". The Chargers left San Diego and the Rams left St. Louis because taxpayers didn't want to build their shiny, ostentatious stadiums.
I don't fault the billionaire for asking, I fault the political system that allows this to happen.
01 Apr 22
@wildgrass saidYou make good point, but kkunfortunatlehy this subject is an example of an imperfect society. i.e, you suggest that 'people have a say in the matter'. But they don't know the business, economics of it all, the mumbling in the back room that IS going on, the daily study that needs to be done to render a studied vote. How in the world can educated \votes be taken? All that can be done is to put it on a ballot to see if they wanta stadium . but that is about it. Asking them to vote on the money part of it, not such a good idea. They would have to review the entire pro forma, budget, reputation and referrals of an architect, etc.,the list is too long.
"Know what they are doing" and "hammer out something that works for everyone" is pretty much the same... Backroom deal between a politician and a very profitable business to transfer wealth from middle class tax payers to wealthy billionaires. It works well for the politician and the billionaire, not so much for you and me.
As Jim mentioned earlier, it does not need to b ...[text shortened]...
I don't fault the billionaire for asking, I fault the political system that allows this to happen.
Lib dream world.
02 Apr 22
@averagejoe1 saidAgree to disagree. I believe in small government and you don't. That's fine. But your views are not conservative.
You make good point, but kkunfortunatlehy this subject is an example of an imperfect society. i.e, you suggest that 'people have a say in the matter'. But they don't know the business, economics of it all, the mumbling in the back room that IS going on, the daily study that needs to be done to render a studied vote. How in the world can educated \votes be taken? All ...[text shortened]... a, budget, reputation and referrals of an architect, etc.,the list is too long.
Lib dream world.
@wildgrass saidI believe in small government, look back and see how I have promoted having just one welfare agency for the 40M that need it, and kick the losers out. That means making govt smaller. I think that of the 300 other agencies, we can cut that number in half. You know, the FDA, the FAA, the FBI, DEA, Border Patrol are necessary, The Dept of education, which runs $1M annually, why,,,we can do away with that, the states have their own. Small govt Wildgrass. Hey do you know the Govt just ADDED EIGHTY THOUSAND IRS employees? I would have actually reduced the number that are already there , and hired no one. So, there you have it. Limited Govt, ala AvJoe.
Agree to disagree. I believe in small government and you don't. That's fine. But your views are not conservative.
Your comment about AvJoe is thus incorrect. I have it in writing !!!