Scrapping Welfare

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Theo520 said:
I think these studies are often highly manipulative.

Money outflow may actually increases while revenue and jobs are concentrated rather than increased. New restaurants near the stadium do well but at the expense of neighborhood restaurants dispersed through the city. It simply redirects disposable income, it doesn’t create more of it and doesn’t cause a net increase in tourism or industry. It’s often only the franchise owner that is a clear winner.

- The Atlantic

Sports stadiums do not generate significant local economic growth, Stanford expert says
Sports stadiums don't spur economic growth, Stanford expert says

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sports-jobs-taxes-are-new-stadiums-worth-the-cost/
Click to expand...
When it comes to these types of studies, none of it is a guarantee, it’s all projections.

The point of the stadium is to entice people from the outside to come to the area to watch the game. This may or may not work, depending on the team.

That Stanford article only accounts for the stadium being used for sporting events, and it’s primary example of failure is a stadium that was built to lure a team away, not for a team that was already established. It’s really a disingenuous article…

The other article makes a more convincing case.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying sports stadiums are a good thing. Frankly, I think the amount of money that goes to athletics is a little beyond ridiculous, as are the salaries of coaches and players. I wouldn’t mind seeing the entire industry move back to what it was like before sports became the new American Church >_> I’ve just seen the work that goes into the estimations for stuff like this, and it’s not something that’s undertaken lightly.
 
Last edited:
KMC said:
I get your point about moving, however, using San Francisco as an example, if we increase the amount of federal assistance to help people in San Francisco, aren’t we letting the city of San Francisco and the state of California off the hook? Its their policies that have created a bit of a mess to the point teachers cannot afford to live in that city.

Seems to me, if we as a nation have to make up for poor decision making at the local level, then shouldn’t we get a say in who leads at the local level?
Click to expand...
California is an economic disaster of its own making. Unless you’re insanely wealthy, few can afford to live there. Seattle/a chunk of NW Washington is heading in the same direction if it’s not careful. I don’t think any amount of Federal funding will pull CA out of the hole it’s in. Most of Sacramento needs to go - that’s the only thing that’s going to fix CA.

I’ve got nothing with CA given as an example, if you know what I mean by that. They’re the prime example of the worst case scenario.

We do get a say in who leads at the local level. I’m not sure what you mean by that.
 
Last edited:
JanSobieskiIII said:
I keep hoping the Calexit will be a real thing.
Click to expand...
I keep hoping we’ll scrap the Presidential system and go Parliamentary. But we’d have to amend whole swaths of the Constitution.

Alas. A man can dream.
 
Last edited:
I’d rather just see more power returned to the states that feds shouldn’t have.

We were never meant to have a bunch of provinces ruled from a central government.
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
I’d rather just see more power returned to the states that feds shouldn’t have.

We were never meant to have a bunch of provinces ruled from a central government.
Click to expand...
I understand that, but it’s not 1789 anymore. Two issues have radically increased the fundamental need for more centralized, federal government.
  1. Population has grown. The more people you have living in a confined space, the more rules you require to govern interactions. No need for a noise ordinance in rural Montana. But there’s huge need for a noise ordinance in an apartment building.
  2. Communication has utterly exploded. You no longer consume goods, news and personal communication on the local or state level. You do so on a national level. While many may choose to superficially identify as more state-oriented than nation-oriented, they still watch national news programs and eat at national food chains and use national and international communication platforms like Facebook (or CAF forums 🙂 ).
Change does happen.

And the proof is in the pudding. Government had grown more federal because it needed to. There is a market effect in play here, as much as some would want to deny it.
 
Last edited:
I don’t disagree. I just loathe the idea of California’s population getting to dictate anything to people in Montana through the feds. Their living circumstances are completely different.

I’ve said before, if anything I wouldn’t oppose that when a city reaches a certain population threshold it could become another federal district and removed from the body politic of the state it resides in physically so that one huge population center can’t overrun the whole rest of a state. I think that would be helpful.
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
I don’t disagree. I just loathe the idea of California’s population getting to dictate anything to people in Montana through the feds. Their living circumstances are completely different.

I’ve said before, if anything I wouldn’t oppose that when a city reaches a certain population threshold it could become another federal district and removed from the body politic of the state it resides in physically so that one huge population center can’t overrun the whole rest of a state. I think that would be helpful.
Click to expand...
I think much progress on both our woes would be realized by term limits and requiring a balanced budget when not in a state of war.
 
Last edited:
ProdglArchitect said:
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying sports stadiums are a good thing. Frankly, I think the amount of money that goes to athletics is a little beyond ridiculous, as are the salaries of coaches and players. I wouldn’t mind seeing the entire industry move back to what it was like before sports became the new American Church >_> I’ve just seen the work that goes into the estimations for stuff like this, and it’s not something that’s undertaken lightly.
Click to expand...
I think a stadium can serve a lot of useful purposes, but many of the deals negotiated favor the franchise far more than the taxpayers. Cities need basic convention facilities far more than a stadium to bring in outside revenue, or just stem outflows.

You have to have a fantastic team if you are going to really bring in tourism $
 
I was referring to people in Texas or anywhere else paying taxes to fund “welfare” in localities with bad local leadership, and not getting a say in who the leadership is. In a way, its kind of “taxation without representation”.

I certainly get the counter arguments of ‘we vote for congress who determines level of support to those localities’, however, root cause in many instances is bad local leadership, who have misaligned spending priorities
 
True. We’ve all seen that more than once for certain.

Never thought about it in the “taxation without representation” sort of way, but yes, I agree, in a way it is.
 
Another reason we actually need federal intervention from time to time is to protect the rights of individual citizens when they are ignored or stepped on at the state or local level. That’s what the Constitutional amendments after the Civil War provided for — the Bill of Rights binds not only the federal government but the states, and the citizen can rightly expect the larger authority to intervene on his side against the smaller authority. (That’s also why “ignore Roe and limit abortion on a state level” is a non-starter; however much we might disagree, abortion is tied into the rights of the individual by SCOTUS decision, and the feds are likely to stomp on any efforts to curtail that right. And even if we disagree in that case, that’s a good thing in general. I also am no fan of federal overreach and the abuse of the commerce clause to make everything a federal matter, but I don’t want a state or local government following the will of the majority to be able to curtail my rights without recourse.)
 
Usagi said:
Another reason we actually need federal intervention from time to time is to protect the rights of individual citizens when they are ignored or stepped on at the state or local level. That’s what the Constitutional amendments after the Civil War provided for — the Bill of Rights binds not only the federal government but the states, and the citizen can rightly expect the larger authority to intervene on his side against the smaller authority. (That’s also why “ignore Roe and limit abortion on a state level” is a non-starter; however much we might disagree, abortion is tied into the rights of the individual by SCOTUS decision, and the feds are likely to stomp on any efforts to curtail that right. And even if we disagree in that case, that’s a good thing in general. I also am no fan of federal overreach and the abuse of the commerce clause to make everything a federal matter, but I don’t want a state or local government following the will of the majority to be able to curtail my rights without recourse.)
Click to expand...
Excellent post. I’m leery of federal overreach at times as well and an absolutely crystal clear example of it was SCOTUS making gay marriage legal in all 50.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t see how a nation where “all men are created equal” could exclude gay folks from the declaration. But I prefer my laws to come from congress, thank-you-very-much. Ya know. Like it was designed to.

I think if the originators saw how the Commerce Clause was being stretched, particularly to legalize gay marriage, they would have all had strokes.

Who knew it’s been de-jure legal since 1789?!? 🤔 Just took us 225 years to realize it! 😅
 
Last edited:
If we remove the safety net, then things will get worse instead of better when people realize the unemployment rate isnt as low as everybody says. Remove the net and you remove the unemployment lie behind it.
 
I think the concern is more that, say, food production isn’t evenly distributed throughout the country. So you’d have to make sure that the areas with a lot of poor urban people don’t get screwed by areas that produce a lot of food.
 
Pup7 said:
California is an economic disaster of its own making. Unless you’re insanely wealthy, few can afford to live there.
Click to expand...
A state where only rich people live. Great! I was looking for a place where i take advantage of rich man’s guilt, and make a few million in the guise of helping the poor…
 
Last edited:
feed_me said:
If we remove the safety net, then things will get worse instead of better when people realize the unemployment rate isnt as low as everybody says. Remove the net and you remove the unemployment lie behind it.
Click to expand...
But we can start to contain the safety net, with our lower unemployment. If we can maintain lowered unemployment for several years, it should have a profound impact on safety net costs. Then expand it again during the next major recession (temporarily).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top