OT: NFL Thread
- Thread starter GGpX
- Start date
I know they're in Missouri. You really are not smart.
On what? There seems to be some agreement that it's usually not the optimal use of public funds, but that doesn't mean it's always a bad use of public funds. I realize that's probably too nuanced for you to grasp but it's worth a shot.
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou
I will get banned again soon, worry not.
They all agree that not only is it not an optimal use of public funds but that it is a colossal waste of public funds. MLB and NFL owners do not need welfare. And they certainly dont need a stadium deal where the costs are held by the public while all the profits are held privately. It's just a taxpayer funded real estate grift.
They absolutely don't all agree on that.
Not the same thing
Maybe not the exact same... but these massive investments can pay themselves off a lot faster than you think.
Sure if you have a master marketing stud like Messi , Ohtani , etc...
A new stadium doesnt do anything unless its now functional for concerts etc...
GrandWazoo
Well-known member
I will never understand why people who are against welfare are supportive of welfare for billionaires.
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou
I will get banned again soon, worry not.
Find one who doesn't then.
I understand what you are saying. I'm not sure I would necessarily call deals like this "Welfare." They are selling a product to a market.
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou
I will get banned again soon, worry not.
Selling a product is fine when the public is free to choose to pay for it or not. But when city hall gets bribed into giving the public's money to a billionaire owner to build a stadium that he could pay for himself, without the public having a say, it's not kosher.
At the very least, any stadium proposal seeking taxpayer funds should be put to a referendum so the public can have the final say as to whether the billionaire owner gets their money and under what conditions. And the decision as to who gets to vote should be determined by who is being expected to pay. If it's just the local community then the vote should be among just the affected community. If they're looking for money from the state or province then everyone in that state or province gets to vote.
And if the voters say no, the owner has two options: build it with his own money or fuck off and grift some other city.
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou
I will get banned again soon, worry not.
And it's always the same people.
Back in 2010 Count, who is always decrying the poors and "commie socialism" nonetheless supported the Olympics grift coming to Vancouver whereas I wanted no public money to be spent on them because I am consistent in my beliefs about how public money should be spent and on what it should be spent.
Because people derive enjoyment from watching professional sports?
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou
I will get banned again soon, worry not.
So, as a Montreal taxpayer, you don't have a problem with the Olympic Stadium debt?
I like watching sports too but not if the city in which I reside has to go bankrupt paying ransom to a greedy team owner. Im happy to buy tickets to watch the games but don't ask me and the next 3 generations of taxpayers to build a stadium for an owner who could afford to build it himself and who will inevitably want me to build him another one in 20 years. Fuck that noise.
I dont enjoy anything THAT much.
I wish I coukd come across more lawyers with arguing "skills" like yours. My life would be easier.
Olympics were a great two weeks.
if Canada can spend no money to study the effect of govt policy on lesbians in Ethiopia (or whatever it was) we can spend on pro sports.
if Canada can spend no money to study the effect of govt policy on lesbians in Ethiopia (or whatever it was) we can spend on pro sports.
As Wehave tells people who disagree with public spending that he wants, "Eat shit, cope and seethe"