Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Spending money you don't have is the essence of liberalism.
And conservatism evidently. Most of our debt has been racked up by Republican administrations.
It has been racked up mostly be Democrat congresses.
And conservatism evidently. Most of our debt has been racked up by Republican administrations.
It has been racked up mostly be Democrat congresses.
Between 1980 and 2008, the White House (the guy who signs the bills in to law authorizing spending) was occupied by Republicans for 20 of the 28 years...Reagan from 1980-1988, BushI 1988-1992, BushII 2000-2008. Regardless of what the Democrat Congress spent, these men authorized it or do they get no blame for authorizing it?
Which is exactly what the authorities in Allen, Texas and the AISD is doing; elsewise they would have paid for it at once.
Such projects are always paid for with bond money.
Yes, I know but it is spending money you don't have...you're spending money you expect to get in the future. Which is the essence of liberalism.
I was not aware that the owners of The Redwings were Liberals
right in the OP buddy boy
city's plans to spend more than $400 million in Michigan taxpayer funds on a new hockey arena for the Red Wings.
Why doesnt the Redwings organization tell the people of Detroit that they are grateful for 60 years of support and will be happy with their old arena till Detroit gets back on its feet?
It has been racked up mostly be Democrat congresses.
Between 1980 and 2008, the White House (the guy who signs the bills in to law authorizing spending) was occupied by Republicans for 20 of the 28 years...Reagan from 1980-1988, BushI 1988-1992, BushII 2000-2008. Regardless of what the Democrat Congress spent, these men authorized it or do they get no blame for authorizing it?
Democrats in Congress were always pushing for higher spending.
Such projects are always paid for with bond money.
Yes, I know but it is spending money you don't have...you're spending money you expect to get in the future. Which is the essence of liberalism.
Yes, that is the essence of liberalism. However, at least Dallas has a reasonable expectation of getting the money. Detroit obligated itself to spend more money than it could ever earn.
If you use common sense yes. Do you think a high school valedictorian can look at a stadium and tell the difference between a $60M and one that cost only $20M? I guarantee you she couldn't. I guarantee you that nobody on the football team and likely none of the coaches could either.
If you were to spend $99M on education that cuts across all gender, social, and income strata and $20M of the bond float on a football stadium that basically benefits only male students (I assume that girls soccer is played there too but who knows for sure) and a very small percentage of them...you'll be better equipped to fulfill the mission of the school.
Hell, if nothing else, they can offer new programs for the entire student body...not just a small percentage of one gender.
It's rated 113 in the state. I'd hate to see the stadiums at the 112 better schools.
In fairness, Texas is a big place and the 113 rating puts them very high up there.
Could they be better? Yes.
Sure, if they paid for it at one time...but they didn't do that; it's a bond issue that will still have to be paid if things aren't so rosy financially. According to nearly every thread on this message board, we, as a nation, are fucked financially and the next catastrophe is always right around the corner--you post here often and you see that. You think Allen, Texas will be spared?
Hockey is "king" in Michigan. The Red Wings have been around for a gazillion years. Does that justify their building a stadium?
So you think the City of Detroit is forcing this arena on the Redwings?
Unfortunately, the way things work in sports is the teams threaten to move if the City doesn't come up with a new arena/stadium
The city caves and the team makes hundreds of millions on the deal
Yes, I blame the Redwings
The City could say NO. Considering they're broke and all............
They can and they should
And the Redwings should stick with he city until it gets back on its feet
If you use common sense yes. Do you think a high school valedictorian can look at a stadium and tell the difference between a $60M and one that cost only $20M? I guarantee you she couldn't. I guarantee you that nobody on the football team and likely none of the coaches could either.
If you were to spend $99M on education that cuts across all gender, social, and income strata and $20M of the bond float on a football stadium that basically benefits only male students (I assume that girls soccer is played there too but who knows for sure) and a very small percentage of them...you'll be better equipped to fulfill the mission of the school.
Hell, if nothing else, they can offer new programs for the entire student body...not just a small percentage of one gender.
It's rated 113 in the state. I'd hate to see the stadiums at the 112 better schools.
In fairness, Texas is a big place and the 113 rating puts them very high up there.
Could they be better? Yes.
Sure, if they paid for it at one time...but they didn't do that; it's a bond issue that will still have to be paid if things aren't so rosy financially. According to nearly every thread on this message board, we, as a nation, are fucked financially and the next catastrophe is always right around the corner--you post here often and you see that. You think Allen, Texas will be spared?
Hockey is "king" in Michigan. The Red Wings have been around for a gazillion years. Does that justify their building a stadium?
Sorry...the liberal claptrap and avoidance of answering my actual questions make it impossible to answer your post.
Nigga Please.......
Running away so soon?
What's liberal about it?
Spending money you don't have is the essence of liberalism.
Which is exactly what the authorities in Allen, Texas and the AISD is doing; elsewise they would have paid for it at once.
Spending money you don't have is the essence of liberalism.
Which is exactly what the authorities in Allen, Texas and the AISD is doing; elsewise they would have paid for it at once.
What part of "They voted for it" do you not understand?
And did you pay cash for your house? Assuming you actually own a house...
Which is exactly what the authorities in Allen, Texas and the AISD is doing; elsewise they would have paid for it at once.
What part of "They voted for it" do you not understand?
And did you pay cash for your house? Assuming you actually own a house...
According to Candycorn logic, The fact that prosperous and financially responsible Dallas would use bonds to purchase a stadium is just as bad as a bankrupt city like Detroit spending $444 million it doesn't have and can never get on a Hockey stadium.
Yurt? Do you have reading comprehension problems? Seriously dear one? Why in the world would you begin a thread on this and BLAME LIBERALS in Detroit,New $444 million hockey arena is still a go in Detroit
Detroit's financial crisis hasn't derailed the city's plans to spend more than $400 million in Michigan taxpayer funds on a new hockey arena for the Red Wings.
New $444 million hockey arena is still a go in Detroit - Jul. 26, 2013
i need to switch from independent to democrat, i could use that kind of financial planning
Advocates of the arena say it's the kind of economic development needed to attract both people and private investment dollars into downtown Detroit. It's an argument that has convinced Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder and Kevyn Orr, the emergency manager he appointed to oversee the city's finances, to stick with the plan. Orr said Detroit's bankruptcy filing won't halt the arena plans.
"I know there's a lot of emotional concern about should we be spending the money," said Orr. "But frankly that's part of the economic development. We need jobs. If it is as productive as it's supposed to be, that's going to be a boon to the city."
But critics say the project won't have enough economic impact to justify the cost, and that it's the wrong spending priority for a city facing dire economic conditions. Detroit city services are already stretched extremely thin. On average, police take about an hour to respond to calls for help, and 40% of street lights are shut off to save money.
"If you want people to live in the city, and not just visit to go to games, you have to invest in schools, in having the police to respond to calls," said Gretchen Whitmer, the Democratic leader in the state senate. "There are so many investments that should trump a sports stadium.'' Additionally, Orr wants to make deep cuts to both the pensions and health care coverage promised to city employees and retirees.
Which is exactly what the authorities in Allen, Texas and the AISD is doing; elsewise they would have paid for it at once.
What part of "They voted for it" do you not understand?
And did you pay cash for your house? Assuming you actually own a house...
According to Candycorn logic, The fact that prosperous and financially responsible Dallas would use bonds to purchase a stadium is just as bad as a bankrupt city like Detroit spending $444 million it doesn't have and can never get on a Hockey stadium.
Spending money you don't have is the essence of liberalism.
Which is exactly what the authorities in Allen, Texas and the AISD is doing; elsewise they would have paid for it at once.
What part of "They voted for it" do you not understand?
And did you pay cash for your house? Assuming you actually own a house...
Between 1980 and 2008, the White House (the guy who signs the bills in to law authorizing spending) was occupied by Republicans for 20 of the 28 years...Reagan from 1980-1988, BushI 1988-1992, BushII 2000-2008. Regardless of what the Democrat Congress spent, these men authorized it or do they get no blame for authorizing it?
Democrats in Congress were always pushing for higher spending.
So, what you're saying is that Reagan caved, BushI caved, and BushII all caved under Democratic pressure?
so lets get this straight, the republicans on this thread are against building the 444 million dollar stadium after detroit;s bankrupcy as long as they can blame ''a liberal'' for it?
THIS DECISION to spend the 444 MILLION of tax payer's money, while in bankruptcy,
was the REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR'S DECISION....not the 'liberal's'.
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, are you still against the decision? Or are you all now going to support this REPUBLICAN governor's decision to spend the $444 million in tax payer's money for a stadium while cutting promised, contractual retirement pensions for those who worked 20-45 years for the gvt as their employer, while cutting the police force, while cutting street lamps by 40% etc......?
so lets get this straight, the republicans on this thread are against building the 444 million dollar stadium after detroit;s bankrupcy as long as they can blame ''a liberal'' for it?
THIS DECISION to spend the 444 MILLION of tax payer's money, while in bankruptcy,
was the REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR'S DECISION....not the 'liberal's'.
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, are you still against the decision? Or are you all now going to support this REPUBLICAN governor's decision to spend the $444 million in tax payer's money for a stadium while cutting promised, contractual retirement pensions for those who worked 20-45 years for the gvt as their employer, while cutting the police force, while cutting street lamps by 40% etc......?
so lets get this straight, the republicans on this thread are against building the 444 million dollar stadium after detroit;s bankrupcy as long as they can blame ''a liberal'' for it?
THIS DECISION to spend the 444 MILLION of tax payer's money, while in bankruptcy,
was the REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR'S DECISION....not the 'liberal's'.
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, are you still against the decision? Or are you all now going to support this REPUBLICAN governor's decision to spend the $444 million in tax payer's money for a stadium while cutting promised, contractual retirement pensions for those who worked 20-45 years for the gvt as their employer, while cutting the police force, while cutting street lamps by 40% etc......?
We don't know who started it...or at least I don't. These things usually take proposals, then referendums then construction starts. If the construction hasn't started, the REPUBLICAN governor of the state can do all sorts of things to prevent the expenditure.
The governor of the state owns this at this point.
That having been said, I don't see how he can let it go through if the city is bankrupt and cannot pay it's creditors; you don't ask for more credit in the form of bond elections when you cannot pay your current bills.
Above that, you shouldn't ask for credit for frivolous expenditures in any case and you cannot get more frivolous than a hockey arena where the owner could fund it or an NBA, MLB, or NFL stadium where the league could fund it out of money found it it's couch cushions.
