Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[kaz]

Some yes, some no. I'm not just talking about managing the workers, I'm talking about managing the process. Offshoring IT isn't just negative jobs, it changes jobs. And typically the higher paying ones are here. And there are more of them.

Fear, fear, oh fear. The Democrats love you, man. Fear is their chief product. #2 is greed.

No idea what point you are trying to make? China and India have added 500 million very low wage workers with more to come and that is taking millions and millions of jobs from the USA. Now you understand one of the reasons unemployment is up and wages are down.

Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills study says - The Washington Post

In addition, our prosperity has grown because of outsourcing labor intensive low paying jobs all the while helping to create a mass market for US goods over the long haul. In India alone there is a 300+million middle class and more going up as we speak. Keeping all the menial jobs at home does not help our labor force, it frees them for the more complex type of labor they are beginning to enjoy.

Unfortunately, while what you say is true, it counters the Democrat's messages of fear and greed, so no sale...

 

[dcraelin]

I think something both the left and the right could get behind is eliminating the tax-exemption for municipal bonds. These bonds go to fund some of the most corrupt local boondoggles you can imagine. All in local "redistribution" schemes to favored contractors. How many convention centers does the nation need? How many taxpayer subsidized stadiums?

 

[dnsmith35]

Some yes, some no. I'm not just talking about managing the workers, I'm talking about managing the process. Offshoring IT isn't just negative jobs, it changes jobs. And typically the higher paying ones are here. And there are more of them.

Fear, fear, oh fear. The Democrats love you, man. Fear is their chief product. #2 is greed.

No idea what point you are trying to make? China and India have added 500 million very low wage workers with more to come and that is taking millions and millions of jobs from the USA. Now you understand one of the reasons unemployment is up and wages are down.

Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills study says - The Washington Post

In addition, our prosperity has grown because of outsourcing labor intensive low paying jobs all the while helping to create a mass market for US goods over the long haul. In India alone there is a 300+million middle class and more going up as we speak. Keeping all the menial jobs at home does not help our labor force, it frees them for the more complex type of labor they are beginning to enjoy.

Unfortunately, while what you say is true, it counters the Democrat's messages of fear and greed, so no sale...

I can't help it if the left wingers deny the facts of empirically and statistically proved what is true.

 

[dnsmith35]

I think something both the left and the right could get behind is eliminating the tax-exemption for municipal bonds. These bonds go to fund some of the most corrupt local boondoggles you can imagine. All in local "redistribution" schemes to favored contractors. How many convention centers does the nation need? How many taxpayer subsidized stadiums?

Conference centers I may agree with, if they don't produce a profit. Stadiums, I categorically disagree.

A little anecdote from the past. In the comic strip Pogo, the Professor Owl and the Coach Albert the alligator, were at odds. The Owl wanted a new, larger and more efficient library. Albert wanted a "bowl" type stadium. In the hearings one of Albert's statements, "where are you going to find 60,000 paying customers to tromp through a library?" Within days the Louisiana State Legislature voted to make the LSU U into a bowl. Within a year there was enough profit to pay for the library many times over and money to fund the less popular sports for both men and women.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I think something both the left and the right could get behind is eliminating the tax-exemption for municipal bonds. These bonds go to fund some of the most corrupt local boondoggles you can imagine. All in local "redistribution" schemes to favored contractors. How many convention centers does the nation need? How many taxpayer subsidized stadiums?

Conference centers I may agree with, if they don't produce a profit. Stadiums, I categorically disagree.

A little anecdote from the past. In the comic strip Pogo, the Professor Owl and the Coach Albert the alligator, were at odds. The Owl wanted a new, larger and more efficient library. Albert wanted a "bowl" type stadium. In the hearings one of Albert's statements, "where are you going to find 60,000 paying customers to tromp through a library?" Within days the Louisiana State Legislature voted to make the LSU U into a bowl. Within a year there was enough profit to pay for the library many times over and money to fund the less popular sports for both men and women.

The most basic problem with redistribution is thats its suicidal. It makes those who get the free stuff dependent and less rather than more productive. With time the need just grows and grows until everyone is poor. Libs lack the IQ to understand the simple process.

 

[dnsmith35]

I think something both the left and the right could get behind is eliminating the tax-exemption for municipal bonds. These bonds go to fund some of the most corrupt local boondoggles you can imagine. All in local "redistribution" schemes to favored contractors. How many convention centers does the nation need? How many taxpayer subsidized stadiums?

Conference centers I may agree with, if they don't produce a profit. Stadiums, I categorically disagree.

A little anecdote from the past. In the comic strip Pogo, the Professor Owl and the Coach Albert the alligator, were at odds. The Owl wanted a new, larger and more efficient library. Albert wanted a "bowl" type stadium. In the hearings one of Albert's statements, "where are you going to find 60,000 paying customers to tromp through a library?" Within days the Louisiana State Legislature voted to make the LSU U into a bowl. Within a year there was enough profit to pay for the library many times over and money to fund the less popular sports for both men and women.

The most basic problem with redistribution is thats its suicidal. It makes those who get the free stuff dependent and less rather than more productive. With time the need just grows and grows until everyone is poor. Libs lack the IQ to understand the simple process.

I agree with that part which suggests welfare is habituating when given to people who can work and choose not to. I don't believe it will have an effect on non recipients and those who CAN'T WORK need the assistance.

 

[dcraelin]

Conference centers I may agree with, if they don't produce a profit. Stadiums, I categorically disagree.

A little anecdote from the past. In the comic strip Pogo, the Professor Owl and the Coach Albert the alligator, were at odds. The Owl wanted a new, larger and more efficient library. Albert wanted a "bowl" type stadium. In the hearings one of Albert's statements, "where are you going to find 60,000 paying customers to tromp through a library?" Within days the Louisiana State Legislature voted to make the LSU U into a bowl. Within a year there was enough profit to pay for the library many times over and money to fund the less popular sports for both men and women.

Well I was thinking about pro stadiums mostly.......but I doubt that even College Stadiums are all that beneficial.....how many paying customers were going to the original reasonably priced stadium?.........how many paying customers should really be paying something to the Student athletes?..... how much cheaper would it be to just purchase the library?.....or to fund less popular sports.........how many star student athletes really get a good education?.............and it is redistribution, so not sure if your being hypocritical on that.

 

[dnsmith35]

Conference centers I may agree with, if they don't produce a profit. Stadiums, I categorically disagree.

A little anecdote from the past. In the comic strip Pogo, the Professor Owl and the Coach Albert the alligator, were at odds. The Owl wanted a new, larger and more efficient library. Albert wanted a "bowl" type stadium. In the hearings one of Albert's statements, "where are you going to find 60,000 paying customers to tromp through a library?" Within days the Louisiana State Legislature voted to make the LSU U into a bowl. Within a year there was enough profit to pay for the library many times over and money to fund the less popular sports for both men and women.

Well I was thinking about pro stadiums mostly.......but I doubt that even College Stadiums are all that beneficial.....how many paying customers were going to the original reasonably priced stadium?.........how many paying customers should really be paying something to the Student athletes?..... how much cheaper would it be to just purchase the library?.....or to fund less popular sports.........how many star student athletes really get a good education?.............and it is redistribution, so not sure if your being hypocritical on that.

It would cost more money to purchase a library and reduce college athletics. At LSU, before the U was filled in we had 40,000 paying customers tromp through the stadium, enough to cover the cost of the sports and make a profit sufficient to fund university activities previously not possible. Adding 20,000 more paying customers (and now 101,000 with the new additions) along with the oil wells on university property and a functioning sugar mill as part of the chemical engineering program. It is short sighted to reduce profit making processes to buy activities that the profit making process pays for without state money and will continue making money for years to come. Go on line, check out how much the average ticket to an LSU v any SEC team. The profit from that alone is staggering, and that does not include the huge media fees to broadcast sports events.

Pro-stadiums make money for the local tax payers as well, usually recovering the cost in just a couple of years, then the rest is gravy.

 

[dcraelin]

It would cost more money to purchase a library and reduce college athletics. At LSU, before the U was filled in we had 40,000 paying customers tromp through the stadium, enough to cover the cost of the sports and make a profit sufficient to fund university activities previously not possible. Adding 20,000 more paying customers (and now 101,000 with the new additions) along with the oil wells on university property and a functioning sugar mill as part of the chemical engineering program. It is short sighted to reduce profit making processes to buy activities that the profit making process pays for without state money and will continue making money for years to come. Go on line, check out how much the average ticket to an LSU v any SEC team. The profit from that alone is staggering, and that does not include the huge media fees to broadcast sports events.

Pro-stadiums make money for the local tax payers as well, usually recovering the cost in just a couple of years, then the rest is gravy.

Well I know that pro-stadiums are rip-offs.....non-biased studies have shown so...... they cannibalize existing entertainment dollars for one thing....Your endorsement of them calls into question your endorsement of College stadiums........

Also, Is it fair for taxpayer funded entities to compete with free market based businesses? Such as your sugar mill example.

Also, like I pointed to before, the real draw isnt the stadium but the play....the athletes, which are not compensated.

Regardless of all that, the appropriateness of using tax-exempt bonds is still in question. If colleges want to build stadiums.....if they see a benefit....then they should perhaps do so with taxable bonds....All forms of borrowing should be equal on a taxation basis.

 

[dnsmith35]

It would cost more money to purchase a library and reduce college athletics. At LSU, before the U was filled in we had 40,000 paying customers tromp through the stadium, enough to cover the cost of the sports and make a profit sufficient to fund university activities previously not possible. Adding 20,000 more paying customers (and now 101,000 with the new additions) along with the oil wells on university property and a functioning sugar mill as part of the chemical engineering program. It is short sighted to reduce profit making processes to buy activities that the profit making process pays for without state money and will continue making money for years to come. Go on line, check out how much the average ticket to an LSU v any SEC team. The profit from that alone is staggering, and that does not include the huge media fees to broadcast sports events.

Pro-stadiums make money for the local tax payers as well, usually recovering the cost in just a couple of years, then the rest is gravy.

Well I know that pro-stadiums are rip-offs.....non-biased studies have shown so...... they cannibalize existing entertainment dollars for one thing....Your endorsement of them calls into question your endorsement of College stadiums........

Also, Is it fair for taxpayer funded entities to compete with free market based businesses? Such as your sugar mill example.

Also, like I pointed to before, the real draw isnt the stadium but the play....the athletes, which are not compensated.

Regardless of all that, the appropriateness of using tax-exempt bonds is still in question. If colleges want to build stadiums.....if they see a benefit....then they should perhaps do so with taxable bonds....All forms of borrowing should be equal on a taxation basis.

Pro stadiums are not a rip off and it ignorance of reality which causes you to believe that. Nothing can or ever will call my endorsement of college stadiums into question. I know for a fact, that college stadiums pay for themselves, as do pro-stadiums. Without the stadium sufficient attendance to pay are insufficient to even justify the team. The stadiums are not the draw, but they are very important and their size, depending on the popularity of the team is a major issue which anyone with even must a modicum of economics understanding knows.

The Sugar mill is a teaching institution, and without it the private sugar business would have lost money over the years because of its operation and its teaching tool. Amateur athletics cannot be compensated. At most they can get sports scholarships to include meals in many cases.

Tax exemption of bonds make them more attractive, so that shoots that ignorant suggestion to hell and back. Not only should all borrowing be taxable based on the purpose but the need to attract buyers of those bonds. In addition, variations in interest rates make for inequality in borrowing too, but it an important tool for the lending business. Humans are born equal in the eyes of God, but they are not equal in productivity, honesty, creditworthiness, or ability to make positive choices. The inability to make positive choices is what separates the successful from the deadbeats. (and understand, I am not talking about the people WHO CAN'T make choices work for them because they are physically or mentally disabled.) Your concept of "equal" is totally ignorant.

If you are wondering why I am impatient with you, it is because after a reasonable explanation you came back and addressed the same stupid issues. We are done.

 

[dcraelin]

It would cost more money to purchase a library and reduce college athletics. At LSU, before the U was filled in we had 40,000 paying customers tromp through the stadium, enough to cover the cost of the sports and make a profit sufficient to fund university activities previously not possible. Adding 20,000 more paying customers (and now 101,000 with the new additions) along with the oil wells on university property and a functioning sugar mill as part of the chemical engineering program. It is short sighted to reduce profit making processes to buy activities that the profit making process pays for without state money and will continue making money for years to come. Go on line, check out how much the average ticket to an LSU v any SEC team. The profit from that alone is staggering, and that does not include the huge media fees to broadcast sports events.
Pro-stadiums make money for the local tax payers as well, usually recovering the cost in just a couple of years, then the rest is gravy.

Well I know that pro-stadiums are rip-offs.....non-biased studies have shown so...... they cannibalize existing entertainment dollars for one thing....Your endorsement of them calls into question your endorsement of College stadiums........
Also, Is it fair for taxpayer funded entities to compete with free market based businesses? Such as your sugar mill example.
Also, like I pointed to before, the real draw isnt the stadium but the play....the athletes, which are not compensated.
Regardless of all that, the appropriateness of using tax-exempt bonds is still in question. If colleges want to build stadiums.....if they see a benefit....then they should perhaps do so with taxable bonds....All forms of borrowing should be equal on a taxation basis.

Pro stadiums are not a rip off and it ignorance of reality which causes you to believe that. Nothing can or ever will call my endorsement of college stadiums into question. I know for a fact, that college stadiums pay for themselves, as do pro-stadiums. Without the stadium sufficient attendance to pay are insufficient to even justify the team. The stadiums are not the draw, but they are very important and their size, depending on the popularity of the team is a major issue which anyone with even must a modicum of economics understanding knows.
The Sugar mill is a teaching institution, and without it the private sugar business would have lost money over the years because of its operation and its teaching tool. Amateur athletics cannot be compensated. At most they can get sports scholarships to include meals in many cases.
Tax exemption of bonds make them more attractive, so that shoots that ignorant suggestion to hell and back. Not only should all borrowing be taxable based on the purpose but the need to attract buyers of those bonds. In addition, variations in interest rates make for inequality in borrowing too, but it an important tool for the lending business. Humans are born equal in the eyes of God, but they are not equal in productivity, honesty, creditworthiness, or ability to make positive choices. The inability to make positive choices is what separates the successful from the deadbeats. (and understand, I am not talking about the people WHO CAN'T make choices work for them because they are physically or mentally disabled.) Your concept of "equal" is totally ignorant.
If you are wondering why I am impatient with you, it is because after a reasonable explanation you came back and addressed the same stupid issues. We are done.

WE are done huh......good because tho
Your reply on the sugar mill makes some sense............the rest of the post does not. Your commentary on bonds is particularly wacky, "Not only should all borrowing be taxable based on the purpose but the need to attract buyers of those bonds." after saying "Tax exemption of bonds make them more attractive"......maybe u just mistyped something.......Giving a tax break on something makes it more attractive, yes, that could justify giving tax breaks on virtually everything........every purchase.......it really isnt an argument.

 

[dnsmith35]

It would cost more money to purchase a library and reduce college athletics. At LSU, before the U was filled in we had 40,000 paying customers tromp through the stadium, enough to cover the cost of the sports and make a profit sufficient to fund university activities previously not possible. Adding 20,000 more paying customers (and now 101,000 with the new additions) along with the oil wells on university property and a functioning sugar mill as part of the chemical engineering program. It is short sighted to reduce profit making processes to buy activities that the profit making process pays for without state money and will continue making money for years to come. Go on line, check out how much the average ticket to an LSU v any SEC team. The profit from that alone is staggering, and that does not include the huge media fees to broadcast sports events.
Pro-stadiums make money for the local tax payers as well, usually recovering the cost in just a couple of years, then the rest is gravy.

Well I know that pro-stadiums are rip-offs.....non-biased studies have shown so...... they cannibalize existing entertainment dollars for one thing....Your endorsement of them calls into question your endorsement of College stadiums........
Also, Is it fair for taxpayer funded entities to compete with free market based businesses? Such as your sugar mill example.
Also, like I pointed to before, the real draw isnt the stadium but the play....the athletes, which are not compensated.
Regardless of all that, the appropriateness of using tax-exempt bonds is still in question. If colleges want to build stadiums.....if they see a benefit....then they should perhaps do so with taxable bonds....All forms of borrowing should be equal on a taxation basis.

Pro stadiums are not a rip off and it ignorance of reality which causes you to believe that. Nothing can or ever will call my endorsement of college stadiums into question. I know for a fact, that college stadiums pay for themselves, as do pro-stadiums. Without the stadium sufficient attendance to pay are insufficient to even justify the team. The stadiums are not the draw, but they are very important and their size, depending on the popularity of the team is a major issue which anyone with even must a modicum of economics understanding knows.
The Sugar mill is a teaching institution, and without it the private sugar business would have lost money over the years because of its operation and its teaching tool. Amateur athletics cannot be compensated. At most they can get sports scholarships to include meals in many cases.
Tax exemption of bonds make them more attractive, so that shoots that ignorant suggestion to hell and back. Not only should all borrowing be taxable based on the purpose but the need to attract buyers of those bonds. In addition, variations in interest rates make for inequality in borrowing too, but it an important tool for the lending business. Humans are born equal in the eyes of God, but they are not equal in productivity, honesty, creditworthiness, or ability to make positive choices. The inability to make positive choices is what separates the successful from the deadbeats. (and understand, I am not talking about the people WHO CAN'T make choices work for them because they are physically or mentally disabled.) Your concept of "equal" is totally ignorant.
If you are wondering why I am impatient with you, it is because after a reasonable explanation you came back and addressed the same stupid issues. We are done.

WE are done huh......good because tho
Your reply on the sugar mill makes some sense............the rest of the post does not. Your commentary on bonds is particularly wacky, "Not only should all borrowing be taxable based on the purpose but the need to attract buyers of those bonds." after saying "Tax exemption of bonds make them more attractive"......maybe u just mistyped something.......Giving a tax break on something makes it more attractive, yes, that could justify giving tax breaks on virtually everything........every purchase.......it really isnt an argument.

You are so full of it you make reason completely out of touch. Your concept of pro-sports stadiums being undesirable means you have never researched the issue. The concept of eliminating tax free municipal bonds would make a huge number of then unsalable, and no, it is not like considering to give a tax break on everything. Municipalities, Counties and States depend on bond issues to accomplish capital expenditures. Your take on this shows your complete ignorance of the subject. BTW, the small print you used is hard to read and I won't try again.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

It would cost more money to purchase a library and reduce college athletics. At LSU, before the U was filled in we had 40,000 paying customers tromp through the stadium, enough to cover the cost of the sports and make a profit sufficient to fund university activities previously not possible. Adding 20,000 more paying customers (and now 101,000 with the new additions) along with the oil wells on university property and a functioning sugar mill as part of the chemical engineering program. It is short sighted to reduce profit making processes to buy activities that the profit making process pays for without state money and will continue making money for years to come. Go on line, check out how much the average ticket to an LSU v any SEC team. The profit from that alone is staggering, and that does not include the huge media fees to broadcast sports events.

Pro-stadiums make money for the local tax payers as well, usually recovering the cost in just a couple of years, then the rest is gravy.

Well I know that pro-stadiums are rip-offs.....non-biased studies have shown so...... they cannibalize existing entertainment dollars for one thing....Your endorsement of them calls into question your endorsement of College stadiums........

Also, Is it fair for taxpayer funded entities to compete with free market based businesses? Such as your sugar mill example.

Also, like I pointed to before, the real draw isnt the stadium but the play....the athletes, which are not compensated.

Regardless of all that, the appropriateness of using tax-exempt bonds is still in question. If colleges want to build stadiums.....if they see a benefit....then they should perhaps do so with taxable bonds....All forms of borrowing should be equal on a taxation basis.

That is THE dumbest statement ever.

Request Rejected


There is reason why cities clamor for pro sports teams when they talk of moving

 

[dcraelin]

It would cost more money to purchase a library and reduce college athletics. At LSU, before the U was filled in we had 40,000 paying customers tromp through the stadium, enough to cover the cost of the sports and make a profit sufficient to fund university activities previously not possible. Adding 20,000 more paying customers (and now 101,000 with the new additions) along with the oil wells on university property and a functioning sugar mill as part of the chemical engineering program. It is short sighted to reduce profit making processes to buy activities that the profit making process pays for without state money and will continue making money for years to come. Go on line, check out how much the average ticket to an LSU v any SEC team. The profit from that alone is staggering, and that does not include the huge media fees to broadcast sports events.
Pro-stadiums make money for the local tax payers as well, usually recovering the cost in just a couple of years, then the rest is gravy.

Well I know that pro-stadiums are rip-offs.....non-biased studies have shown so...... they cannibalize existing entertainment dollars for one thing....Your endorsement of them calls into question your endorsement of College stadiums........
Also, Is it fair for taxpayer funded entities to compete with free market based businesses? Such as your sugar mill example.
Also, like I pointed to before, the real draw isnt the stadium but the play....the athletes, which are not compensated.
Regardless of all that, the appropriateness of using tax-exempt bonds is still in question. If colleges want to build stadiums.....if they see a benefit....then they should perhaps do so with taxable bonds....All forms of borrowing should be equal on a taxation basis.

Pro stadiums are not a rip off and it ignorance of reality which causes you to believe that. Nothing can or ever will call my endorsement of college stadiums into question. I know for a fact, that college stadiums pay for themselves, as do pro-stadiums. Without the stadium sufficient attendance to pay are insufficient to even justify the team. The stadiums are not the draw, but they are very important and their size, depending on the popularity of the team is a major issue which anyone with even must a modicum of economics understanding knows.
The Sugar mill is a teaching institution, and without it the private sugar business would have lost money over the years because of its operation and its teaching tool. Amateur athletics cannot be compensated. At most they can get sports scholarships to include meals in many cases.
Tax exemption of bonds make them more attractive, so that shoots that ignorant suggestion to hell and back. Not only should all borrowing be taxable based on the purpose but the need to attract buyers of those bonds. In addition, variations in interest rates make for inequality in borrowing too, but it an important tool for the lending business. Humans are born equal in the eyes of God, but they are not equal in productivity, honesty, creditworthiness, or ability to make positive choices. The inability to make positive choices is what separates the successful from the deadbeats. (and understand, I am not talking about the people WHO CAN'T make choices work for them because they are physically or mentally disabled.) Your concept of "equal" is totally ignorant.
If you are wondering why I am impatient with you, it is because after a reasonable explanation you came back and addressed the same stupid issues. We are done.

WE are done huh......good because tho
Your reply on the sugar mill makes some sense............the rest of the post does not. Your commentary on bonds is particularly wacky, "Not only should all borrowing be taxable based on the purpose but the need to attract buyers of those bonds." after saying "Tax exemption of bonds make them more attractive"......maybe u just mistyped something.......Giving a tax break on something makes it more attractive, yes, that could justify giving tax breaks on virtually everything........every purchase.......it really isnt an argument.

You are so full of it you make reason completely out of touch. Your concept of pro-sports stadiums being undesirable means you have never researched the issue. The concept of eliminating tax free municipal bonds would make a huge number of then unsalable, and no, it is not like considering to give a tax break on everything. Municipalities, Counties and States depend on bond issues to accomplish capital expenditures. Your take on this shows your complete ignorance of the subject. BTW, the small print you used is hard to read and I won't try again.

I thought we were done?..............Pro-sports stadiums are perhaps worth it if paid for with PRIVATE funds and without the use of tax-exempt bonds.....I doubt very much if eliminating tax-exemption would make the bonds unsalable..in fact it might make them more attractive for less wealthy local supporters of projects. BUT if less of them could be sold it would perhaps drive investment dollars into the private arena where they are arguably needed more........Stating I'm ignorant on the issue without showing why doesnt do anything for your side of the argument.

 

[dcraelin]

It would cost more money to purchase a library and reduce college athletics. At LSU, before the U was filled in we had 40,000 paying customers tromp through the stadium, enough to cover the cost of the sports and make a profit sufficient to fund university activities previously not possible. Adding 20,000 more paying customers (and now 101,000 with the new additions) along with the oil wells on university property and a functioning sugar mill as part of the chemical engineering program. It is short sighted to reduce profit making processes to buy activities that the profit making process pays for without state money and will continue making money for years to come. Go on line, check out how much the average ticket to an LSU v any SEC team. The profit from that alone is staggering, and that does not include the huge media fees to broadcast sports events.

Pro-stadiums make money for the local tax payers as well, usually recovering the cost in just a couple of years, then the rest is gravy.

Well I know that pro-stadiums are rip-offs.....non-biased studies have shown so...... they cannibalize existing entertainment dollars for one thing....Your endorsement of them calls into question your endorsement of College stadiums........

Also, Is it fair for taxpayer funded entities to compete with free market based businesses? Such as your sugar mill example.

Also, like I pointed to before, the real draw isnt the stadium but the play....the athletes, which are not compensated.

Regardless of all that, the appropriateness of using tax-exempt bonds is still in question. If colleges want to build stadiums.....if they see a benefit....then they should perhaps do so with taxable bonds....All forms of borrowing should be equal on a taxation basis.

That is THE dumbest statement ever.

Request Rejected


There is reason why cities clamor for pro sports teams when they talk of moving

what request?

Yeah there IS a reason....they're leadership are idiots and crooks.

 

[dnsmith35]

You are an ignorant ass, and it shines through even if one does not read your tiny print.

 

[dcraelin]

It would cost more money to purchase a library and reduce college athletics. At LSU, before the U was filled in we had 40,000 paying customers tromp through the stadium, enough to cover the cost of the sports and make a profit sufficient to fund university activities previously not possible. Adding 20,000 more paying customers (and now 101,000 with the new additions) along with the oil wells on university property and a functioning sugar mill as part of the chemical engineering program. It is short sighted to reduce profit making processes to buy activities that the profit making process pays for without state money and will continue making money for years to come. Go on line, check out how much the average ticket to an LSU v any SEC team. The profit from that alone is staggering, and that does not include the huge media fees to broadcast sports events.

Pro-stadiums make money for the local tax payers as well, usually recovering the cost in just a couple of years, then the rest is gravy.

Well I know that pro-stadiums are rip-offs.....non-biased studies have shown so...... they cannibalize existing entertainment dollars for one thing....Your endorsement of them calls into question your endorsement of College stadiums........

Also, Is it fair for taxpayer funded entities to compete with free market based businesses? Such as your sugar mill example.

Also, like I pointed to before, the real draw isnt the stadium but the play....the athletes, which are not compensated.

Regardless of all that, the appropriateness of using tax-exempt bonds is still in question. If colleges want to build stadiums.....if they see a benefit....then they should perhaps do so with taxable bonds....All forms of borrowing should be equal on a taxation basis.

That is THE dumbest statement ever.
Request Rejected
There is reason why cities clamor for pro sports teams when they talk of moving

what request?
Yeah there IS a reason....their leadership are idiots and crooks.

Here is a link to an article about a new book which talks about all the subsidies to stadiums, and how it is having a negative impact on city finances.

New book by Harvard prof details 10b in hidden stadium and arena subsidies Field of Schemes

There was also an article in today's WSJ asking if college is worth it. It refers to another book and the authors say college value has plummeted due to exclusive building of student centers and stadiums.

 

[dnsmith35]

It would cost more money to purchase a library and reduce college athletics. At LSU, before the U was filled in we had 40,000 paying customers tromp through the stadium, enough to cover the cost of the sports and make a profit sufficient to fund university activities previously not possible. Adding 20,000 more paying customers (and now 101,000 with the new additions) along with the oil wells on university property and a functioning sugar mill as part of the chemical engineering program. It is short sighted to reduce profit making processes to buy activities that the profit making process pays for without state money and will continue making money for years to come. Go on line, check out how much the average ticket to an LSU v any SEC team. The profit from that alone is staggering, and that does not include the huge media fees to broadcast sports events.

Pro-stadiums make money for the local tax payers as well, usually recovering the cost in just a couple of years, then the rest is gravy.

Well I know that pro-stadiums are rip-offs.....non-biased studies have shown so...... they cannibalize existing entertainment dollars for one thing....Your endorsement of them calls into question your endorsement of College stadiums........

Also, Is it fair for taxpayer funded entities to compete with free market based businesses? Such as your sugar mill example.

Also, like I pointed to before, the real draw isnt the stadium but the play....the athletes, which are not compensated.

Regardless of all that, the appropriateness of using tax-exempt bonds is still in question. If colleges want to build stadiums.....if they see a benefit....then they should perhaps do so with taxable bonds....All forms of borrowing should be equal on a taxation basis.

That is THE dumbest statement ever.
Request Rejected
There is reason why cities clamor for pro sports teams when they talk of moving

what request?
Yeah there IS a reason....their leadership are idiots and crooks.

Here is a link to an article about a new book which talks about all the subsidies to stadiums, and how it is having a negative impact on city finances.

New book by Harvard prof details 10b in hidden stadium and arena subsidies Field of Schemes

There was also an article in today's WSJ asking if college is worth it. It refers to another book and the authors say college value has plummeted due to exclusive building of student centers and stadiums.

Interesting that you use OPINIONS to support your case. I, on the other hand, have used the profit features of big college football even if those whipper wills are crying in the distance. I know from absolute fact that when LSU enclosed their U the additional profit paid for the library after one year, so go stuff yourself. When and if (you can't) you can show sports do not create a profit for the universities let me know. I'm waiting!

 

[dcraelin]

It would cost more money to purchase a library and reduce college athletics. At LSU, before the U was filled in we had 40,000 paying customers tromp through the stadium, enough to cover the cost of the sports and make a profit sufficient to fund university activities previously not possible. Adding 20,000 more paying customers (and now 101,000 with the new additions) along with the oil wells on university property and a functioning sugar mill as part of the chemical engineering program. It is short sighted to reduce profit making processes to buy activities that the profit making process pays for without state money and will continue making money for years to come. Go on line, check out how much the average ticket to an LSU v any SEC team. The profit from that alone is staggering, and that does not include the huge media fees to broadcast sports events.

Pro-stadiums make money for the local tax payers as well, usually recovering the cost in just a couple of years, then the rest is gravy.

Well I know that pro-stadiums are rip-offs.....non-biased studies have shown so...... they cannibalize existing entertainment dollars for one thing....Your endorsement of them calls into question your endorsement of College stadiums........

Also, Is it fair for taxpayer funded entities to compete with free market based businesses? Such as your sugar mill example.

Also, like I pointed to before, the real draw isnt the stadium but the play....the athletes, which are not compensated.

Regardless of all that, the appropriateness of using tax-exempt bonds is still in question. If colleges want to build stadiums.....if they see a benefit....then they should perhaps do so with taxable bonds....All forms of borrowing should be equal on a taxation basis.

That is THE dumbest statement ever.
Request Rejected
There is reason why cities clamor for pro sports teams when they talk of moving

what request?
Yeah there IS a reason....their leadership are idiots and crooks.

Here is a link to an article about a new book which talks about all the subsidies to stadiums, and how it is having a negative impact on city finances.
New book by Harvard prof details 10b in hidden stadium and arena subsidies Field of Schemes
There was also an article in today's WSJ asking if college is worth it. It refers to another book and the authors say college value has plummeted due to exclusive building of student centers and stadiums.

Interesting that you use OPINIONS to support your case. I, on the other hand, have used the profit features of big college football even if those whipper wills are crying in the distance. I know from absolute fact that when LSU enclosed their U the additional profit paid for the library after one year, so go stuff yourself. When and if (you can't) you can show sports do not create a profit for the universities let me know. I'm waiting!

Opinions?...........that's all you have offered !!!!...........these are two books by college professors who have done studies of the economics of these things..........extensive study..........they offer a heck of a lot more than you have. And they presumably would be happy to acknowledge any good stadiums do as they earn their living at universities.

 

[dnsmith35]

It would cost more money to purchase a library and reduce college athletics. At LSU, before the U was filled in we had 40,000 paying customers tromp through the stadium, enough to cover the cost of the sports and make a profit sufficient to fund university activities previously not possible. Adding 20,000 more paying customers (and now 101,000 with the new additions) along with the oil wells on university property and a functioning sugar mill as part of the chemical engineering program. It is short sighted to reduce profit making processes to buy activities that the profit making process pays for without state money and will continue making money for years to come. Go on line, check out how much the average ticket to an LSU v any SEC team. The profit from that alone is staggering, and that does not include the huge media fees to broadcast sports events.

Pro-stadiums make money for the local tax payers as well, usually recovering the cost in just a couple of years, then the rest is gravy.

Well I know that pro-stadiums are rip-offs.....non-biased studies have shown so...... they cannibalize existing entertainment dollars for one thing....Your endorsement of them calls into question your endorsement of College stadiums........

Also, Is it fair for taxpayer funded entities to compete with free market based businesses? Such as your sugar mill example.

Also, like I pointed to before, the real draw isnt the stadium but the play....the athletes, which are not compensated.

Regardless of all that, the appropriateness of using tax-exempt bonds is still in question. If colleges want to build stadiums.....if they see a benefit....then they should perhaps do so with taxable bonds....All forms of borrowing should be equal on a taxation basis.

That is THE dumbest statement ever.
Request Rejected
There is reason why cities clamor for pro sports teams when they talk of moving

what request?
Yeah there IS a reason....their leadership are idiots and crooks.

Here is a link to an article about a new book which talks about all the subsidies to stadiums, and how it is having a negative impact on city finances.
New book by Harvard prof details 10b in hidden stadium and arena subsidies Field of Schemes
There was also an article in today's WSJ asking if college is worth it. It refers to another book and the authors say college value has plummeted due to exclusive building of student centers and stadiums.

Interesting that you use OPINIONS to support your case. I, on the other hand, have used the profit features of big college football even if those whipper wills are crying in the distance. I know from absolute fact that when LSU enclosed their U the additional profit paid for the library after one year, so go stuff yourself. When and if (you can't) you can show sports do not create a profit for the universities let me know. I'm waiting!

Opinions?...........that's all you have offered !!!!...........these are two books by college professors who have done studies of the economics of these things..........extensive study..........they offer a heck of a lot more than you have. And they presumably would be happy to acknowledge any good stadiums do as they earn their living at universities.

Wrong answer! College professors have opinions. Many would like to see college athletics go away because they believe it hurts academics, in spite of the fact the profits from the major sports put money into academics to teach more young people.

I looked at the actual profits big college sports programs put back to the school. Profits trump professor opinions every time, INCLUDING but not only the professors who wanted to build the new library in spite of the fact profits from football and basketball profits built the new library without the state putting up the money. The worse case scenarios are found in small programs which may better be eliminated. But big time school athletics are money makers.Are you really that ignorant? I suspect you don't even realize that even the lowest of the top 40 programs made $56.5 million. Here is a list of the top 40 in a study taken in 2008:

Colleges RK TEAM TICKETS STUDENTS AWAY_GAMES DONATIONS UNIVERSITY MEDIA_RIGHTS BRANDING TTLREVENUE
1 Crimson Tide $28,410,419 $0 $5,500 $29,860,400 $4,101,515 $8,825,964 $4,506,056 $123,769,841
2 Longhorns $44,691,119 $1,832,229 $318,000 $35,057,421 $0 $191,690 $16,639,171 $120,288,370
3 Buckeyes $38,608,138 $0 $3,750,189 $27,556,385 $0 $15,799,713 $5,015,349 $115,737,022
4 Gators $21,122,966 $2,578,306 $283,376 $42,630,821 $0 $3,907,635 $10,184,021 $106,607,895
5 Volunteers $29,403,335 $1,000,000 $250,000 $26,405,309 $0 $6,650,000 $4,154,643 $101,806,196
6 Wolverines $40,258,325 $0 $245,178 $15,138,000 $58,817 $2,025,000 $11,087,101 $99,027,105
7 Cowboys $17,528,662 $1,934,812 $755,765 $54,923,758 $2,109,205 $2,300,000 $1,718,005 $98,874,092
8 Badgers $26,936,910 $0 $330,000 $18,777,294 $3,356,669 $5,660,555 $2,705,018 $95,118,124
9 Aggies $30,144,815 $0 $305,500 $28,341,873 $3,264,000 $0 $9,224,632 $92,476,146
10 Nittany Lions* -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -------------------------------------------$91,570,233
11 Tigers $21,991,623 $5,195,136 $106,289 $34,897,688 $0 $4,650,000 $6,079,271 $89,311,824
12 Bulldogs $18,716,327 $3,073,606 $1,966,874 $30,542,918 $0 $4,107,627 $8,315,014 $85,554,395
13 Tigers $28,519,228 $0 $1,498,466 $23,252,017 $0 $6,841,868 $2,345,902 $85,018,205
14 Fighting Irish* -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $83,352,439
15 Jayhawks $17,630,120 $1,907,119 $135,500 $37,089,914 $1,976,277 $6,939,857 $3,107,370 $82,976,047
16 Hawkeyes $19,103,235 $1,487,795 $1,544,021 $21,404,864 $800,000 $1,500,000 $5,371,577 $81,515,865
17 Spartans $21,870,622 $0 $4,016,571 $19,501,782 $298,568 $829,600 $3,777,152 $81,390,686
18 Sooners $35,162,720 $150,000 $537,000 $13,255,316 $0 $209,125 $9,651,372 $77,098,008
19 Cardinal* -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $76,661,466
20 Trojans* -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $76,409,919
21 Cornhuskers $30,560,065 $0 $208,000 $16,410,663 $0 $3,908,483 $8,858,680 $75,492,884
22 Seminoles $13,393,780 $6,590,629 $2,132,221 $25,190,569 $0 $291,667 $12,284,211 $73,458,494
23 Wildcats $27,263,673 $568,996 $156,000 $11,980,590 $0 $7,512,601 $5,788,505 $71,727,243
24 Golden Gophers $20,361,691 $0 $225,240 $5,149,444 $4,241,212 $611,000 $6,025,620 $68,951,692
25 Blue Devils* -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $67,820,335
26 Fighting Illini $14,296,494 $2,930,324 $1,304,500 $14,159,705 $1,272,372 $1,283,459 $4,582,018 $67,818,403
27 Gamecocks $20,821,727 $1,987,931 $310,000 $18,039,591 $0 $574,921 $2,983,978 $66,545,953
28 Razorbacks $28,645,905 $0 $19,309 $12,768,088 $1,518,452 $1,561,000 $2,279,843 $66,174,916
29 Tar Heels $17,861,212 $6,205,790 $1,825,440 $15,892,163 $0 $10,194,418 $2,653,080 $66,148,186
30 Bruins $22,402,565 $2,646,743 $3,587,023 $8,354,437 $210,000 $6,855,613 $7,744,834 $66,088,264
31 Hokies $17,486,754 $6,157,813 $236,231 $17,345,132 $367,642 $2,766,994 $1,453,744 $64,412,343
32 Cavaliers $14,895,325 $11,119,358 $1,556,651 $18,933,467 $0 $0 $3,561,647 $64,396,612
33 Golden Bears $15,481,732 $2,241,249 $2,063,356 $13,894,187 $5,209,697 $0 $6,373,873 $64,326,057
34 Boilermakers $17,596,957 $0 $1,091,710 $10,411,973 $0 $0 $5,058,518 $64,253,784
35 Eagles* -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $61,203,340
36 Huskies $22,556,942 $0 $1,609,393 $12,682,342 $1,849,894 $925,600 $6,589,490 $60,729,016
37 Terrapins $12,115,588 $8,601,302 $1,573,651 $12,612,828 $2,698,244 $0 $5,575,476 $59,624,100
38 Tigers $21,097,510 $1,501,216 $1,414,151 $14,109,137 $2,435,268 $777,500 $2,929,444 $59,180,652
39 Hoosiers $14,389,989 $0 $180,500 $9,848,448 $0 $0 $4,512,149 $57,155,333
40 Ducks $17,410,851 $0 $830,321 $18,347,181 $0 $2,674,268 $519,750 $56,623,901