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

[travis t]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

You're overstating it (my emphasis):



That's far short of being able to claim that such subsidies are always a bad deal for taxpayers. Some may be, but others may not.

A teacher long ago taught me a trick on tests with multiple choice responses: avoid responses that contain the word 'always.' I did not use that word in post #7. I did make reference to 'virtually all studies.' Keep in mind that it is a miracle to get 83% of economists to agree on something. The old joke is that if you ask 3 economists, you'll get 4 different opinions.

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.

The evidence here is overwhelming. The only way to disbelieve is if one goes into denial.

[Commonproject]

Impressive that OP has trolled people for 5 pages now. He's obviously not serious

[travis t]

Originally Posted by Commonproject

Impressive that OP has trolled people for 5 pages now. He's obviously not serious

Your self-ascribed psychic powers are obviously not working. I sincerely believe that not a penny of taxpayer money should be given to pro sports teams when there is insufficient funding for foster children.

I remember a teacher once commenting that her school had to hold bake sales sometimes to raise money. (This was long ago, when schools were often under-funded). The teacher thought that the Air Force should have to hold bake sales to raise money for their jets and missiles, and the tax money thus freed up should instead go to schools.