Skip to main content

View Diary: Cory Booker Just May Have Done President Obama a Favor (138 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Building stadiums has been pretty popular (4+ / 0-)

    with working/middle class voters because they are the fans.  They do not realize how they are taken advantage of in the process (why should billionaires profit from a taxpayer funded stadium?), but community support for a community asset is not a bad thing in and of itself.

    “when Democrats don’t vote, Democrats don’t win.” Alan Grayson

    by ahumbleopinion on Tue May 22, 2012 at 07:55:57 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  How can u support publicly-funded stadiums but not (0+ / 0-)

      ....the Bain Capitals of the world?

      In fact, I would argue that PE is FAR more beneficial to the middle-class than REGRESSIVE-TAX funded stadiums.

      Private Equity returns (whether via Buyout Funds like Bain Capital or Venuture Capital funds like VP Gore's Kleiner Perkins) are the only thing between hundreds of thousands of civil servants and layoff notices.

      Right now, Dem governors and mayors are asking their public pension fund managers to increase their allocation to PE.  In order for the pension numbers to work, these funds need to return about 8.5% a year.  And with Bernanke's 0.125% fed funds rate and the 10-year debt trading at 1.80%, the only asset capable of high returns is PE.  

      You want to eliminate PE?  Be prepared for cities and municipalities to slash the pensions and benefits of civil servants.

      If I had to choose, what's worse, PE or REGRESSIVE TAXATION, it's a no-brainer.

      REGRESSIVE TAXATION IS EXACERBATING WEALTH AND INCOME INEQUALITY.

      Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. http://www1.hamiltonproject.org/es/hamilton/hamilton_hp.htm

      by PatriciaVa on Tue May 22, 2012 at 08:12:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am strongly in favor of progressive taxation, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fumie

        but Republicans have been very successful in cutting taxes for the rich.  We definitely need to get back to a tax system where the richest pay their share and where investment income is taxed on a par with working income.

        But that is a separate issue of publicly funded public assets.  If we could fund them with progressive taxes, I would be 100% in favor of doing that.  But that is not usually something that can get passed in a Republican controlled government.

        So the choice comes down to, do voters want a stadium given the limited options that can get passed to fund it? I am not familiar with the details in MN, but stadiums can be great assets to the community. Yes they should be paid for with progressive taxation, but that is rarely a real choice these days with the GOP in charge of the purse strings.

        “when Democrats don’t vote, Democrats don’t win.” Alan Grayson

        by ahumbleopinion on Tue May 22, 2012 at 08:34:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It doesn't surprise me at all (0+ / 0-)

        that you would say that "private equity" which is vulture capitalism in a prom dress, is more beneficial to the middle class than stadiums.  

        Building projects are more efficient as stimulus than almost any other means.  Vulture capitalism destroys economies, local, state and nationally.  

        After all, your agenda is right in your sig line for all to see.  In it, you tout both Robert Rubin and the hamilton project, which are funded by Goldman Sachs.  Not that it's a problem or a conflict of interest or anything.  

        http://my.firedoglake.com/...

        What was the tell, you ask?  Your use of the term "center left".  Who sys that?  Only a neoliberal who is on the down low, that's who.  

        Sorry guys, I meant to stay away, but I couldn't let this slide.  

        If you haven't earned my vote when the time comes, don't blame me when you lose.

        by Nada Lemming on Tue May 22, 2012 at 02:46:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I am against both forms of corporate welfare. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ahumbleopinion

        Let them enjoy an unsubsidized free market, free of the socialism of government funded stadiums and tax breaks to move their company here or there, and tax them at reasonable rates with no deductions. Say, about 25 or 30%.

        The only company that should ever get a tax break? A mom and pop shop on start up. The smallest businesses that drive the economy. But only to help get them started. And then they can start to pay taxes as they build. Or they can fail.

        And no large corporation, those huge behemoths that already play on a tilted field just from their sheer size, should ever get a tax cut or deduction for any reason. They either produce useful things or disappear.

        ePluribus Media
        Collaboration is contagious!

        by m16eib on Tue May 22, 2012 at 04:52:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Only the Green Bay Packers are a community asset (0+ / 0-)

      All other athletic teams could hardly be considered "community assets" as such. Like the Baltimore Colts of old, they can pack up in the middle of the night and be in Indianapolis the next morning.  

      Shirley Chisholm was right. Our Republic is in deep trouble.

      by Big River Bandido on Tue May 22, 2012 at 11:14:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site