Poll: Would you vote yes or no to a Vikings Stadium (Minneapolis: private schools, universities)
Minneapolis - St. PaulTwin Cities
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is rank insanity to even CONSIDER spending public money for billionaires when schools are having their funding slashed (or in our case, not getting the money at all). I really really want to see some data on who supports a Ramsey County tax to build a new stadium. I would bet any money that it's (a) mostly Republicans who'd balk at spending even ONE-TENTH of this amount to restore school funding; and (b) non-Ramsey residents who would love nothing more than to stick it to the least-well-off county in the Twin Cities.
N-O. NO. And as a resident of Ramsey County, I would relish the opportunity to vote against these greedy M-Fers. I'm a Packers fan who values the Packers/Queens rivalry, but I'd vote with my head, not my heart. Notwithstanding all the fluffy "we love our team" arguments, I'll wager that a majority of voters DO NOT CARE about football -- and certainly not enough to want to pay for a new stadium.
And as far as all these so-called "other uses," tough luck. None of them generate the money needed to keep a giant stadium open. The MSFC already said they can't operate the Metrodome without at least the Vikings or the Twins. If you believe that the Queens aren't bluffing when they say that they won't sign another lease, the Metrodome is the doomed. You'll have to find somewhere else for your marching band to practice.
On the other hand, I think the Vikings ARE bluffing. The minute you move a team to LA, you just removed the only plausible threat the NFL has. Buffalo, Jacksonville, St Louis -- all these teams are losing money and have been mentioned as ripe for moving. What happens to those teams if the Vikings go to LA? All of a sudden those cities will feel no heat unless the NFL wants to think about contraction. I say we call the bluff, vote down this ludicrous idea, and the Vikings will continue to play at the Dome and still suck.
well, having the vikings move would just create more packer fans. My guess, most vikings fans would become packer fans or Chicago Bears fans. I think allow them to leave is perhaps a silly idea, but good for the packers.
I don't think so. The Packers are the Vikings' arch rival, so I don't see them picking up too many ex-Viking fans. Most would probably lose interest, or find a different team to cheer for. I know I would go back to being a Lions fan, since I'm from Michigan. Forget the Packers.
It is rank insanity to even CONSIDER spending public money for billionaires when schools are having their funding slashed (or in our case, not getting the money at all). I really really want to see some data on who supports a Ramsey County tax to build a new stadium. I would bet any money that it's (a) mostly Republicans who'd balk at spending even ONE-TENTH of this amount to restore school funding; and (b) non-Ramsey residents who would love nothing more than to stick it to the least-well-off county in the Twin Cities.
N-O. NO. And as a resident of Ramsey County, I would relish the opportunity to vote against these greedy M-Fers. I'm a Packers fan who values the Packers/Queens rivalry, but I'd vote with my head, not my heart. Notwithstanding all the fluffy "we love our team" arguments, I'll wager that a majority of voters DO NOT CARE about football -- and certainly not enough to want to pay for a new stadium.
And as far as all these so-called "other uses," tough luck. None of them generate the money needed to keep a giant stadium open. The MSFC already said they can't operate the Metrodome without at least the Vikings or the Twins. If you believe that the Queens aren't bluffing when they say that they won't sign another lease, the Metrodome is the doomed. You'll have to find somewhere else for your marching band to practice.
On the other hand, I think the Vikings ARE bluffing. The minute you move a team to LA, you just removed the only plausible threat the NFL has. Buffalo, Jacksonville, St Louis -- all these teams are losing money and have been mentioned as ripe for moving. What happens to those teams if the Vikings go to LA? All of a sudden those cities will feel no heat unless the NFL wants to think about contraction. I say we call the bluff, vote down this ludicrous idea, and the Vikings will continue to play at the Dome and still suck.
I agree with 99% of your post. We should not spend public money on a professional sports franchise. Imagine if we took the money from the tax increase that would have been spent on a stadium and invested it into the state's universities. That would benefit many of the state's residents, instead of just an elite few.
If the Vikings are set on leaving, let them leave. It will create more interest in the Gophers, as well as the Twins and Wild. LA fans will be happy, and most fair weather Minnesota fans won't care.
It is rank insanity to even CONSIDER spending public money for billionaires when schools are having their funding slashed (or in our case, not getting the money at all).
Well your solution is extremely flawed, which is fine because your statement is not your own idea, but one you've been fed by the liberal media. Public schooling is clearly an inefficient method of education, especially when compared side-by-side to private education. Your solution, among many liberals, is that "throwing money at it makes it better". The problem with asking the government to spend more on anything, you have to take it from someone else. So whether you're telling the government "Don't buy $300M in acid, but $300M in flowers instead!" you're still telling the government to steal from me and give it to someone else which I am 100% against.
Quote:
I really really want to see some data on who supports a Ramsey County tax to build a new stadium. I would bet any money that it's (a) mostly Republicans who'd balk at spending even ONE-TENTH of this amount to restore school funding; and (b) non-Ramsey residents who would love nothing more than to stick it to the least-well-off county in the Twin Cities.
Well we're trying to generate data, and I'm sure if you google it or look on Star Tribune's website you can find the State Fair Poll Results on whether citizens would vote yes or no on the referendum. Problem solved.
Moving on, you are obviously someone who thinks there's a difference between Liberals and Conservatives. They both call for MORE SPENDING, they just do it in different ways and they take the stolen money to give to different groups or people. It's still stealing whether you give it to your friends for financial gain or you give it to starving children. Theft is theft. The spending in this country and the mentality that throwing money at something to solve it is what's digging our huge economic hole. The debt is too high, the value of the dollar is too low, and no matter what they try to do they can't spend their way out of it. I have some good, short read books that can shed some light on this subject if you'd like me to PM them to you.
Quote:
N-O. NO. And as a resident of Ramsey County, I would relish the opportunity to vote against these greedy M-Fers. I'm a Packers fan who values the Packers/Queens rivalry, but I'd vote with my head, not my heart. Notwithstanding all the fluffy "we love our team" arguments, I'll wager that a majority of voters DO NOT CARE about football -- and certainly not enough to want to pay for a new stadium.
I would bet that the majority of voters DO care about football, and if they were fully educated on the money brought back through the benefits of a stadium and an NFL franchise, I'm sure they'd reconsider whatever position they previously had. I just think most voters are misinformed, such as yourself, but you have every right to your opinion. You should just try to express it without sounding so ignorant otherwise people will discredit you.
Quote:
And as far as all these so-called "other uses," tough luck. None of them generate the money needed to keep a giant stadium open. The MSFC already said they can't operate the Metrodome without at least the Vikings or the Twins. If you believe that the Queens aren't bluffing when they say that they won't sign another lease, the Metrodome is the doomed. You'll have to find somewhere else for your marching band to practice.
The "other uses" actually do generate money in tax revenue, much much more than you obviously realize. You're also forgetting the value that being able to hold such events have on the business, trade, arts, music communities. It's not just that they try to make money with these events, they have these events for fun, for local business, for entertainment. Those are valuable things to a community that can't be associated with a dollar amount.
Quote:
On the other hand, I think the Vikings ARE bluffing. The minute you move a team to LA, you just removed the only plausible threat the NFL has. Buffalo, Jacksonville, St Louis -- all these teams are losing money and have been mentioned as ripe for moving. What happens to those teams if the Vikings go to LA? All of a sudden those cities will feel no heat unless the NFL wants to think about contraction. I say we call the bluff, vote down this ludicrous idea, and the Vikings will continue to play at the Dome and still suck.
I don't think they're bluffing. Wilf doesn't get a stadium, he won't sign a lease that guarantees him to lose money another year, he will sell the team to an ownership in LA that will move the team. No one will buy a money-losing franchise and keep it in the same money-losing market/facility. It doesn't make business sense. Anyone who buys the team will do so with intentions to move.
You also forget how big LA really is. It can easily support two football teams. They've already anticipated the possibility of two franchises relocating to Los Angeles.
Quote:
Finally, GO PACK GO.
Must be real hard to say goodbye to a local team that you don't support. I'm sure that you are not a common voice in that community like you think you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by northstar22
I agree with 99% of your post. We should not spend public money on a professional sports franchise. Imagine if we took the money from the tax increase that would have been spent on a stadium and invested it into the state's universities. That would benefit many of the state's residents, instead of just an elite few.
If the Vikings are set on leaving, let them leave. It will create more interest in the Gophers, as well as the Twins and Wild. LA fans will be happy, and most fair weather Minnesota fans won't care.
This is the 1% I disagree with.
Again, Universities, government institutions, they don't NEED more of our tax money. What they need is to get out of education altogether and allow a free market to provide better and more cost effective education. You're asking the government to take MORE of our money, give it to themselves, while tuition costs will continue to increase due to inflation and regulations, while at the same time the quality of the education continues to decline.
Well your solution is extremely flawed, which is fine because your statement is not your own idea, but one you've been fed by the liberal media. Public schooling is clearly an inefficient method of education, especially when compared side-by-side to private education. Your solution, among many liberals, is that "throwing money at it makes it better". The problem with asking the government to spend more on anything, you have to take it from someone else. So whether you're telling the government "Don't buy $300M in acid, but $300M in flowers instead!" you're still telling the government to steal from me and give it to someone else which I am 100% against.
Ah, so you are now against the stadium, then! Interesting, and here I thought this 13 page thread wasn't changing anyone's mind.
Ah, so you are now against the stadium, then! Interesting, and here I thought this 13 page thread wasn't changing anyone's mind.
I'm indifferent. I live in Chicago, so whether they stay in Minnesota or they move to LA it makes no difference to me, because they aren't in my home city regardless. I still have to go to a bar or invest in Sunday Ticket to watch them play every weekend.
I guess living in Chicago, a huge sports city where people worship their teams here, I'm kind of taken back that Minnesota hates the Vikings so much they they are literally ready to say "go ahead, leave" and care less if they have an NFL team. I'm also very surprised that Minnesota, although is known for excellent public education and has a high literacy rate compared to most of the country, the citizens can't understand the benefits of the tax revenue, the charities, and the value of an NFL franchise. It's absolutely baffling to me that they just don't get it.
Side note: I've been crossing my fingers the whole time hoping that possibly Chicago takes on a second team. This city is big enough and passionate enough about sports that they could support a second NFL franchise, easily. If the Vikings move to Chicago, they could move them to the AFC and have one of the AFC teams move to the NFC North in their place.
Well your solution is extremely flawed, which is fine because your statement is not your own idea, but one you've been fed by the liberal media. Public schooling is clearly an inefficient method of education, especially when compared side-by-side to private education. Your solution, among many liberals, is that "throwing money at it makes it better". The problem with asking the government to spend more on anything, you have to take it from someone else. So whether you're telling the government "Don't buy $300M in acid, but $300M in flowers instead!" you're still telling the government to steal from me and give it to someone else which I am 100% against.
Well, you've obviously gone to the Ron Paul School of Economics. Anybody who argues that taxing equates with stealing is someone I'm not interested in debating. You can't have a reasonable, intelligent discussion under those terms. And if, like you just said, "you're still telling the government to steal from me and give it to someone else which I am 100% against." If that's true, then you must realize that this stadium deal is stealing from people and giving it to Zygi. Which you must be 100% against. Right? RIGHT?
Quote:
Well we're trying to generate data, and I'm sure if you google it or look on Star Tribune's website you can find the State Fair Poll Results on whether citizens would vote yes or no on the referendum. Problem solved.
The state fair poll was not scientific. Problem not solved.
Quote:
... and if they were fully educated on the money brought back through the benefits of a stadium and an NFL franchise, I'm sure they'd reconsider whatever position they previously had.
You're talking in unquantified terms. Not persuasive. Don't give me the line about the players generating income tax. We'll be way ahead of the game if we DON'T spend $650m of our money on the stadium.
Quote:
The "other uses" actually do generate money in tax revenue, much much more than you obviously realize. You're also forgetting the value that being able to hold such events have on the business, trade, arts, music communities. It's not just that they try to make money with these events, they have these events for fun, for local business, for entertainment. Those are valuable things to a community that can't be associated with a dollar amount.
My point was that the Facilities Commission said that the Dome itself is not viable without either the Twins or Vikings. I'm not talking about whether Billy and his family stay at the Holiday Inn over high school football weekend. Again, you're talking in unquantified terms. I don't know what money those events bring in -- and neither do you. Moreover, economists (I know -- gasp! -- science!) have basically said that it's disposable income that would otherwise be spent elsewhere.
Besides, you just said taxes are stealing, so what difference does it make to you what revenues are generated?
Quote:
You also forget how big LA really is. It can easily support two football teams. They've already anticipated the possibility of two franchises relocating to Los Angeles.
I am fully aware of the size of Los Angeles and the two NFL franchises that left the city in the same year.
Quote:
Again, Universities, government institutions, they don't NEED more of our tax money. What they need is to get out of education altogether and allow a free market to provide better and more cost effective education. You're asking the government to take MORE of our money, give it to themselves, while tuition costs will continue to increase due to inflation and regulations, while at the same time the quality of the education continues to decline.
Why would anyone WANT that?
Won't get into that pointless debate, except to say that it's called civilization. And notwithstanding Glenn and Rush, lots of people want it.
Beyond all this, I do expect the stadium will be built. There will be some shady backroom deal that precludes any sort of referendum. Mark Dayton (like Timmy before him) doesn't want to be known as a governor who let the beloved Purple People Eaters get away. But I would personally applaud him for drawing a line in the sand by saying no to Zygi. I will gladly eat crow if I'm wrong on this.
Well your solution is extremely flawed, which is fine because your statement is not your own idea, but one you've been fed by the liberal media. Public schooling is clearly an inefficient method of education, especially when compared side-by-side to private education. Your solution, among many liberals, is that "throwing money at it makes it better". The problem with asking the government to spend more on anything, you have to take it from someone else. So whether you're telling the government "Don't buy $300M in acid, but $300M in flowers instead!" you're still telling the government to steal from me and give it to someone else which I am 100% against.
There is no such thing as the "liberal media." Mainstream media -- if it has a political slant at all -- leans to the right, not the left. You're just parroting the same tired old Tea Party talking points that people like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage have been going on about for years.
Taxation is not theft, it is a legitimate government activity. For as long as there have been governments, there has been taxation. It's necessary for government to survive. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't use government services -- that means no driving on state highways, no drinking municipal water, no emergency 911 calls, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdubs3201
Again, Universities, government institutions, they don't NEED more of our tax money. What they need is to get out of education altogether and allow a free market to provide better and more cost effective education. You're asking the government to take MORE of our money, give it to themselves, while tuition costs will continue to increase due to inflation and regulations, while at the same time the quality of the education continues to decline.
Why would anyone WANT that?
"Free market education" would not be education at all -- it would be nothing but corporatist brainwashing and propaganda. Universities need to be free (think free speech, not free lunch), and in order to be free, they must be run by governments or nonprofit institutions. I do not want to see education in this country destroyed by allowing the private sector to take it over. Do you really think corporate-owned universities would foster -- no, scratch that -- permit academic freedom? No, they would use "education" to persuade people to buy their goods and services, speak negatively of their competitors, and advance the corporatist agenda. Tenure would go away -- professors who didn't push the corporation's worthless marketing drivel would be fired. Research would be twisted to benefit whichever corporation owned the university.
For-profit "universities" are a joke. The "University" of Phoenix is not a higher education institution, just a cheap corporatist diploma mill that separates people from their money.
Last edited by northstar22; 09-29-2011 at 10:14 PM..
There is no such thing as the "liberal media." Mainstream media -- if it has a political slant at all -- leans to the right, not the left. You're just parroting the same tired old Tea Party talking points that people like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage have been going on about for years.
Taxation is not theft, it is a legitimate government activity. For as long as there have been governments, there has been taxation. It's necessary for government to survive. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't use government services -- that means no driving on state highways, no drinking municipal water, no emergency 911 calls, etc.
"Free market education" would not be education at all -- it would be nothing but corporatist brainwashing and propaganda. Universities need to be free (think free speech, not free lunch), and in order to be free, they must be run by governments or nonprofit institutions. I do not want to see education in this country destroyed by allowing the private sector to take it over. Do you really think corporate-owned universities would foster -- no, scratch that -- permit academic freedom? No, they would use "education" to persuade people to buy their goods and services, speak negatively of their competitors, and advance the corporatist agenda. Tenure would go away -- professors who didn't push the corporation's worthless marketing drivel would be fired. Research would be twisted to benefit whichever corporation owned the university.
For-profit "universities" are a joke. The "University" of Phoenix is not a higher education institution, just a cheap corporatist diploma mill that separates people from their money.
I can play along and say that there are legitimate reasons for taxation, such as those you mentioned. There are needs of society that cannot be practically privatized (such as roads) without causing the society to not function well. They are also used by the vast majority of society. However, the Vikings are hardly in the realm.
As far as the stated disagreement with "free market education", I'll let lie the seeming rant on capitalism and how it seems that anything capitalistic must be bad.
I'll agree there is some "caveat emptor" going on with the University of Phoenix by the student purchasing their product. However, you can be separated from your money at the University of Minnesota and end with a degree that gets you the ability to have discussions such as: does a tree make a sound if it falls in the woods and nobody is around?
Now, let me preface the remaining with this disclaimer - and people can take it or leave it: The University of Minnesota does do many good things and it is not without merit. We are likely a better place to live with the University - as long as we also had free alternative choices to provide competition.
That said...
Let's also not pretend the U doesn't have its own agendas. Do we really think a Board of Regents appointed by the Legislature doesn't play politics? Do we think that the University doesn't make at least some financial decisions to appeal to their legislators to keep them happy and keep the funding coming, very similar to a for-profit making their decisions on how to run their school?
As far as what could be in free market education, there is no reason a student can't shop around to demand the best education they can find, and believe it or not a school can certainly be profitable and reputable. To that end, Phoenix shares same accreditations as the "reputable" schools (including the U in some programs). It's not really Phoenix's fault if a student drops a bunch of cash and then doesn't use it for something meaningful.
Point being, you don't have to like for-profit schools but you certainly have the opportunity to shop around - and if you don't like it you aren't compelled to support it through taxes you legally must pay. Better yet, there is nothing stopping private organizations and foundations to form universities and schools that allow their professors to "pursue pure knowledge" for its own sake and not have to do crazy things like be accountable to anyone to produce something meaningful to society...in other words supporting "free market education". It's only the arrogance of public institutions teachers and administrators that tell us that they should have the monopoly on education because they somehow can do it so much better without fail.
By the way...here's a little thought: how about we STOP paying the .5% sales tax to pay for the Metrodome that has long since been paid before we start discussing another sales tax? Interesting how these taxes are supposed to pay for the expense of a specific product but curiously never go away even when the reason for the tax is "paid off".
But, yeah...it's all a legitimate purpose for taxation somehow, right? Along with the tax for the Twins stadium, along with the tax for the Legacy Amendment (yes, I know it wasn't a direct tax - but when MN has yet another budget shortfall we now can't take that tax revenue to balance the books - which then conveniently provides a reason for raising taxes), along with every school district forever pleading poverty and wanting tax levies, etc. etc. etc.
We are a high tax state and yet we somehow never seem to have enough money to cover our expenses - because everyone has to have their little cut and we all want to play the "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" game. The Democrats play it, and the Republicans play it; they are really pretty much two sides of the same coin and this Vikings debate is no different.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
