Super Bowl of Welfare

Macduff

Moderator
Apr 2010
92,276
30,679
Pittsburgh, PA
#23
I happen to LOVE football. People would probably call me a football fanatic. Nevertheless, and this may be shocking, there are actually people who don't give a flying French fart about football, and would rather watch grass grow, or watch paint dry, than watch football. And it is manifestly unfair to force them to pay taxes to support the construction of football stadiums. Those stadiums are not a 'public good' in the same sense that say, the space program or the Centers for Disease Control are, for which we CAN justify the levy of taxes.

In a survey, 85% of academic and professional economists agreed with the proposition that "Local and state governments should eliminate subsidies to professional sports franchises."

The other 15% of the economists are knuckleheads.
This is an issue that defies left/right labeling more than any other I can think of. We had the stadium fight here in the Pittsburgh area in the 90's. Grassroots activists on the left and right were united in opposition. Stadium subsidy was overwhelmingly opposed by the public and a referendum to enact a sales tax increase to fund new stadiums was resoundingly defeated at the polls. But big government, big business, and big labor were all in favor and when those three get together, they'll do whatever the hell they want. So despite public sentiment against it, the stadiums were still publicly funded.
 
Likes: BigLeRoy

Rasselas

Former Staff
Feb 2010
68,143
43,762
valid location
#24
True. But it isn't a new issue. They could've pursued that ten or twenty years ago.
I'm not sure what you mean. It's not like anyone ran on the issue or that the issue was discussed during any campaign. They just did it after voters had clearly indicated they didn't want that.

We need to remember that elections are not won because voters support ideas or candidates but rather that the acquiesce to them. In a political landscape with many issues, it's not unusual for voters to acquiesce to an unpopular idea because it is overshadowed by other ideas. It's like your landlord refusing to fix a leaky faucet and when you confront him about it, he says "Move then! Your only other alternative is that house across the street with a leaky roof!"
 

Macduff

Moderator
Apr 2010
92,276
30,679
Pittsburgh, PA
#26
In Western Pennsylvania they had a REFERENDUM about increasing taxes to pay for stadiums for the Pirates and Steelers, which voters REJECTED. Office holders came along later and approved the plan over the objections of voters. Does that change your mind?
We didn't just say no, we said hell no. It was a referendum held in Allegheny County (for people not familiar with the area that's where the city of Pittsburgh is) and the surrounding counties. The vote was 58-42 against in Allegheny County and that was as good as it got. It was even more overwhelmingly against in the surrounding counties. Which makes sense. It's not like too many taxpayers in Butler or Greene counties are going to want to pay more taxes for something that at best would primarily benefit another county.
 

boontito

Future Staff
Jan 2008
103,151
91,636
Most Insidious
#27
I'm not sure what you mean. It's not like anyone ran on the issue or that the issue was discussed during any campaign. They just did it after voters had clearly indicated they didn't want that.

We need to remember that elections are not won because voters support ideas or candidates but rather that the acquiesce to them. In a political landscape with many issues, it's not unusual for voters to acquiesce to an unpopular idea because it is overshadowed by other ideas. It's like your landlord refusing to fix a leaky faucet and when you confront him about it, he says "Move then! Your only other alternative is that house across the street with a leaky roof!"
No. I'm saying that this isn't a new issue. Stadiums have been receiving public funding for decades. Nothing prevented voters from insisting on a law that would prevent this in their state back in the 1980s or 1990s. Then the more recent cases wouldn't have happened.
 

boontito

Future Staff
Jan 2008
103,151
91,636
Most Insidious
#28
I swear... you sit and wait for me to post. Do you have a life?


I am against what i am against.... you will live. The topic is..... sports.
What are you talking about? We hardly ever interact that I recall. It's a question. A simple question in fact. Do you not have a life? Do you sit and wait to play the victim anytime someone questions you about something you post?

Geez... #VictimWarriors
 
Last edited:
Feb 2015
15,942
7,934
sadness
#29
What are you talking about? We hardly ever interact that I recall. It's a question. A simple question in fact. Do you not have a life? Do you sit and wait to play the victim anytime someone questions you about something you post?

Geez... #VictimWarriors

the topic is about sports. Yes, it was a question.... about me. You will live
 

boontito

Future Staff
Jan 2008
103,151
91,636
Most Insidious
#30
the topic is about sports. Yes, it was a question.... about me. You will live
If your delicate feelings can't handle questions about your statements or if the mere appearance of my username sends you into paranoia inducing palpitations about being a victim of this or that, maybe you should put me on ignore.

So, are you against all corporate welfare or only when it involves sports?
 

Similar Discussions