We have money for pro sports, but not for foster children. (Seattle: transporting, homes)

[bergun]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

But, how many jobs do foster children generate? How much business? Tax revenues? How many hotdogs do they sell?

Seriously, however, you could cut all of the public supports for sports stadiums and not gain a penny for foster children, mental health, opiate addiction treatment, or whatever other "good cause" you can think of.

Wow... Thank you for sharing some common sense without injecting an emotion in an emotional topic. If people are just honest with themselves for a minute, they would know that the (local) government sucks with our money and for them to "fix" any social problem... It's not going to happen.

How many millions upon millions of dollars have been spent on "fixing" the homeless issue? And has the homeless situation improved at any noticible level after years and years of increased taxes and other spending? No and that's a factual statement.

Local governments, especially in Seattle, isn't going to solve one social issue regardless how much money they get through increasing everybody's tax bill... IMHO.

[ukiyo-e]

I hate these "why can we pay for this but not that?" questions, especially when the two issues have nothing to do with each other. Very few people are ever going to approve of the way ALL resources are allocated, and cutting them off for one is no guarantee the money will be used for the other.

[travis t]

Originally Posted by mhays25

Pro sports subsidies are an investment in economic development and entertainment. They don't make money directly....

.

See post #7 (just before yours). They don't make money directly, yes. But they don't generate money indirectly either.

In their book, Sports, Jobs, and Taxes, Roger Noll and Andrew Zimbalist present a comprehensive review of stadium investments. In all cases, they find a new sports facility to have extremely small (or negative) effects on overall economic activity and employment. Furthermore, they were unable to find any facilities that had a reasonable return on investment.

[travis t]

Originally Posted by pnwguy2

Travis T.:

Thanks for all your "opposite view" sources and/or links. We will never agree on this because my standards of the value of major league teams is apparently much different from yours.

Thanks for a civil reply, much appreciated. But what you in effect are saying is that 7 of 8 economists are wrong, and you are right. These are not my standards, these are the standards of economists, a big part of whose job is to try to answer questions like this.

[travis t]

Originally Posted by ukiyo-e

I hate these "why can we pay for this but not that?" questions, especially when the two issues have nothing to do with each other. Very few people are ever going to approve of the way ALL resources are allocated, and cutting them off for one is no guarantee the money will be used for the other.

Au contraire they do have something to do with each other. They both represent a use of taxpayer dollars. If you have a dollar in your wallet and spend it on a cup of coffee, you then can't spend that same dollar on a cup of tea. Show me where I am wrong in that?

[travis t]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

But, how many jobs do foster children generate? How much business? Tax revenues? How many hotdogs do they sell?

Seriously, however, you could cut all of the public supports for sports stadiums and not gain a penny for foster children, mental health, opiate addiction treatment, or whatever other "good cause" you can think of.

How many jobs do the stadiums generate? Again, from post #7

In their book, Sports, Jobs, and Taxes, Roger Noll and Andrew Zimbalist present a comprehensive review of stadium investments. In all cases, they find a new sports facility to have extremely small (or negative) effects on overall economic activity and employment. Furthermore, they were unable to find any facilities that had a reasonable return on investment.

If we "cut all of the public supports for sports stadiums" what would happen to all of that tax revenue? It would be available for spending on other government services, one of which could be foster care. The logic could not be more simple.

[CrazyDonkey]

The commonality between foster children, the mentally ill, substance abusers, and the homeless is that they likely don't vote, contribute to campaigns, and hire lobbyists. We have a pay-to-play system. Just locking people up is actually the much more expensive option. (The prison-industrial complex does hire lots of lobbyists.)

[travis t]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

The commonality between foster children, the mentally ill, substance abusers, and the homeless is that they likely don't vote, contribute to campaigns, and hire lobbyists. We have a pay-to-play system. Just locking people up is actually the much more expensive option. (The prison-industrial complex does hire lots of lobbyists.)

I can agree with this post; in fact, you put your finger on the problem. That doesn't make it any less of a travesty for me. If those of us who do vote make enough noise, perhaps the travesty could be rectified.

[Haakon]

Originally Posted by turkeydance

sports and movie stars get the money since "replacement costs" are so high.
1. who could replace and Have the Same Results of the Green Bay Packers starting quarterback?
2. how much would the "box-office" sales decline if Meryl Streep does not appear in the movie?
3. there are LOTS of foster care options which are "replaced" daily.
foster care is extremely cheap. money-makers are not.

Pro athletes can, and are, replaced all the time. There isn't really anything special about them, they're entertainers with no real marketable skills. If the NFL or NBA salary was capped at $50,000 there would still be a line of people a mile long willing to be paid to play a game. If people couldn't watch pro sports they'd watch college or high school sports.

[Haakon]

We have money for pro sports, but not for foster children.

That's how liberal Seattle voters show their real compassion.