I'm not forced into paying this since I don't live in Kansas. The feds force me to pay for complete losers who suck on welfare nipples

I'd rather government fund neither. But if government invests in a winning venture, government benefits.

Now things like Solyndra are not investments, but money laundering. Ukraine- money laundering.

'if you want nice things you have to pay nice money'....

We used to EARN nice things.

Dan Scott said:

---

Continue on the path Trump has started and taking equity for government money. If Apple needs an exception to avoid tariffs, sure we'll take 10% equity. Taxpayers constantly are on the hook for the downside, but never the upside.

---

So start nationalizing private business? More movement towards government socialism?

And you didn't answer my question. Which of the 4 trillion in entitlements would you cut? There is not path out of this without deep cuts to those programs. So which ones?

buda91 said:

---

I'm pretty sure almost everybody on here got their higher education largely paid for by the government.

---

How so?

pdc093 said:

---

'if you want nice things you have to pay nice money'....

We used to EARN nice things.

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Dan Scott said:

---

The payback period is about 30 years from the incremental sales tax revenue. Higher ticket prices for fans, increased concession prices likely, and of course they'll charge you to park at the stadium.

The billionaire team owners make more money, the citizens get the privilege of enjoying their football team for another 30 years at a higher cost. And the dbag politician gets something tangible for their legacy.

And 30 years from now when the bonds are paid off, time to do it again. Just maybe our national debt wouldn't be so high if rich entities used their own money to fund their own investments to make money instead of the taxpayers.

---

Entitlements are 4 trillion of the annual budget. Without gutting that, we are pissing in the wind.

Which of the major entitlements do you propose cutting?

---

A good start would be the fraudulent part, and not just the social programs.

rab79 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Dan Scott said:

---

The payback period is about 30 years from the incremental sales tax revenue. Higher ticket prices for fans, increased concession prices likely, and of course they'll charge you to park at the stadium.

The billionaire team owners make more money, the citizens get the privilege of enjoying their football team for another 30 years at a higher cost. And the dbag politician gets something tangible for their legacy.

And 30 years from now when the bonds are paid off, time to do it again. Just maybe our national debt wouldn't be so high if rich entities used their own money to fund their own investments to make money instead of the taxpayers.

---

Entitlements are 4 trillion of the annual budget. Without gutting that, we are pissing in the wind.

Which of the major entitlements do you propose cutting?

---

A good start would be the fraudulent part, and not just the social programs.

---

Of course but that won't be enough so again, which social programs would you cut first?

AgGrad99 said:

---

I'm not in favor of public funding for stadiums, especially since they don't retain any ownership.

But, i understand the reasoning. It's intended to be for the benefit of their local municipality. It's much closer to an investment than a handout. It helps sustain/bolster local businesses, bring in tax revenue, builds roads, etc, etc. They dont have to offer the subsidies, but it will likely result in all the new development going to a neighboring area.

The welfare handouts provide nothing in return.

Again, not defending the subsidies. Just explaining the difference between them and welfare/socialism.

---

Everything that's bolded is factually incorrect. I know you believe it, and so do many others. Politicians try to sell this, (likely) knowing its not true -- or not caring -- but for them to spout it, it is an out and out lie. There's one, and pretty much only one, thing economists universally agree on: public finance of sports (and other, similar) venues is a BAD idea. There is no economic return on investment. The public investment could be far better spent for other things.

Let's take Cowboys Stadium, and take eminent domain out of the equation for a second. People believe that the stadium and related construction brought in millions, tens/hundreds, billions, etc. for Arlington. But the fact is, had that land been used for other commercial properties it would have brought in far more money for the city with virtually no outlay since the stadium started construction in the mid-2000s.

I don't necessarily consider this socialism, just bad policy.

Like I said, I agree it's bad policy and money better spent elsewhere.

But it's not factually incorrect. Local businesses do benefit. Hotels, restaurants, bars, etc...

But again, I'm not a proponent of publicly funded projects

Local bonds issued to build stadiums/schools/convention centers have NOTHING to do with national debt……

Quote:

---

The bonds, which are estimated to be around $2.4 billion, will be paid off with state sales and liquor tax revenues generated in a defined area around it.

---

the district could span up to 293 square miles. Yeah, really targeted "investment" there..

Oh and by the way- the chiefs pay zero rent to KS. They only kick in 7 million a year, to ALL go back into maintenance of the stadium. All concert/event revenue goes to the chiefs

Bent over the state of kansas residents

Tom Fox said:

---

rab79 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Dan Scott said:

---

The payback period is about 30 years from the incremental sales tax revenue. Higher ticket prices for fans, increased concession prices likely, and of course they'll charge you to park at the stadium.

The billionaire team owners make more money, the citizens get the privilege of enjoying their football team for another 30 years at a higher cost. And the dbag politician gets something tangible for their legacy.

And 30 years from now when the bonds are paid off, time to do it again. Just maybe our national debt wouldn't be so high if rich entities used their own money to fund their own investments to make money instead of the taxpayers.

---

Entitlements are 4 trillion of the annual budget. Without gutting that, we are pissing in the wind.

Which of the major entitlements do you propose cutting?

---

A good start would be the fraudulent part, and not just the social programs.

---

Of course but that won't be enough so again, which social programs would you cut first?

---

All of them.