So Tampa would be better off without a stadium in which to hold conventions? Maybe nothing but gated communities with armed guard posts? When taxpayers vote to pay taxes, either directly or by electing their choice of government, taxes are not "stolen" by "thugs." They are the dues we pay to have to this thing we call "America." If you can't see the IRS as a crucial part of America, you really have no business pretending to be an American.

heh. :) yep, and of course, those hardworking taxpayers will now stop driving on the roads, using the sewers, eating safe food etc, etc in protest.

Seriously, we need a sarcasm font. ARodney, Day was being sarcastic/snarky. Try not jumping in with both feet next time.

Truth to tell, I also did not pick up on the sarcasm. Perhaps a tag would be sufficient?

[src]Insert snarky, sarcastic comment here[/src]

Hmmm. Maybe an irony tag would be good as well.

Perhaps a font, indeed. I post here several times a day, usually with a wry- and hopefully,- pithy comment.

Although, really good snark/sarcasm makes the reader think a bit, before making a decision to 'guffaw' (MItt's word!) or 'snarl'.

ARodney: this is number two of you not getting one of Day's snarks. I really really really think that before you turn yourself into the Poster Boy for Ignorant Alleged Liberal Who Doesn't Do His Research that you hang around here and do some research. You might also want to activate the humor switch in your personal OS.

Well, at least the famous Tampa strip clubs the good Christian delegates will be flocking to at night are truly private enterprises. Indeed, standing up, as they usually do, to government efforts to crush them out, and persevering in the face of burdensome government regulation imposed by people who hate business, I dare say they represent the fruits of Free and Unfettered Market Capitalism that is at the center of Republican theology.

Now, there is where an enterprising "journalist" could make some Hay. Video/photograph some of the Republican nominees/delegates/audience spending their hard(sic)-earned dollars in these private establishments. Maybe an interview or two. Don't let Prince Harry get all the press for his gallivanting in Vegas. Share the Love.

hmm, and what enables bonds to be used? and of course, you ignore the roads to get there, the water/sewer infrastructure, etc.

You really should look into the financing of these things. According to their website, this is the 4th busiest arena in the US (I'm not vouching for that it's what they say). Depending on the breakdown that was negotiated (I can't find it in a quick search) the city, county and state get a tax on every ticket sold to every event.

In other words, the people of this area WANT those roads and want this arena, because they use the facility. Do you think that YOU paid for the road which runs by your house?

Do you think that you DIDN'T pay for the roads that run buy your house? I don't mean to suggest that any of us footed the entire bill, but things funding with public funds , either wholly or partly, are funded by all of us. that is the point isn't it?

The President's (or Ms. Warren's) point never has been that ONLY gov't can build it or ONLY private can build it, but rather that great things happen when there is cooperation between the two, as you, yourself, have even pointed out by showing that the funding for the forum is part private and part public.

You simply don't understand the financing involved. I'm sorry, niether does Benen obviously

Here's a pretty short primer:

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/econ/financing-professional-sports-facilities656.aspx

The state has the job to build roads, period. It builds them to businesses that succeed AND those that fail. Roads don't have anything to do with the success of a business, unless we are talking about residential developments, a very limited model.

The taxpayers paid 16% for the arena, which is a fairly low total as these things go. Some of these things are white elephants that are revenue eaters, but this one clearly is not.

The "stadium authority" is a government chartered entity, doof. The reason you form such entities is to enable private businesses to tap into the reduced interest rates that, at least theoretically, come with bonds that are backed by the full faith and credit of the government.

Or, to put it more simply, the taxpayers were on the hook of the stadium revenues couldn't pay off the loans and, because of that, the business people got a better interest rate.

So, see how that works? Government steps up to lend a hand and private enterprise does things it couldn't do itself.

I am out of my depth here, and so I'm making a guess. Financing for Times Forum was in part from a bond issue, to be paid back through ticket sales. If so, why didn't the developers take out a private bank loan? Is it because such financing is too risky to be carried by private financial entities? So, bonds are authorized and sold, backed up by future revenues generated by the facility? Do bonds sell because they are guaranteed by the taxpayers, so in case revenues do not cover as much as was projected, the taxpayers will be holding the bag?

If I have this sorta kinda correct, then the use of revenue bonds instead of finding private investors or banks to finance the facility is a bit like the auto industry bail-out. At the time, private entities could not be found to lend money to the auto industry, and so the federal government became the lender of last resort, with the risk falling on the taxpayer if the industry did not recover.

Taking necessary risks that cannot or will not be borne by private entities is the proper role of government. Even if the Times Forum is able to repay the bonds through its own revenues, the financing itself could not have been created without the guarantee of the taxpayers. Otherwise the Forum would have been totally financed directly by banks and investors. The taxpayers, through their elected representatives, deemed the existence of the Forum to be a public good that would advance common interests, and they agreed to guarantee financing that would have been too risky for private investors to cover.

Banned,

I absolutely understand the financing involved. Nobody is making an argument about balance of taxpayer to private funds and the resulting return on investment. The point is about the symbiotic relationship of the private and public sectors and how it is a good thing. Republicans seem to take the public sector for granted.

Yes roads are built to all businesses, success and failures alike but, the roads have nothing to do with their success?! How successful would a business be if there weren't a road running to it?

And when the state builds roads, that is OUR money, yours and mine. So, when that road does get paved, we are all contributing to the success of the community that we all committed to...businesses, residences, parks and schools alike.

steve:

there was no chance that the Stadium authority would go bankrupt. You can look at the history of these things and it simply doesn't happen. so no there was never any chance that the taxpayers would be on the hook.

The city benefits from this arena. It doesn't cost them money. That's why they made the deal. In the "old days" cities used to pay for these developments themselves out of the taxpayer dime, but they don't now because they're much smarter.

Ironically enough, Benen's argument would have been true 30-40 years ago, but isn't today.

dfabs:

"Nobody is making an argument about balance of taxpayer to private funds and the resulting return on investment. The point is about the symbiotic relationship of the private and public sectors and how it is a good thing"

Actually yes, that's exactly the argument Benen is making by misstating the amoung of taxpayer funding as 62% when it's actually 16%

daniel:

No, as Steve suggests the interest rate is lower, but there is no doubt given the amount of events that use the place it would have been built regardless.

Here's an NYT story that illustrates the perils of the old way of financing stadiums:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/sports/08stadium.html?pagewanted=all

So you see this really IS a much better way to achieve things, and the complete opposite of what Benen wrote.

Do you really have to demonstrate your bottomless ignorance here every day?

there was no chance that the Stadium authority would go bankrupt. You can look at the history of these things and it simply doesn't happen. so no there was never any chance that the taxpayers would be on the hook.

Banned this is not the point that Steve was making. Your response is a complete strawman. Nor, indeed, is this a representation of how the loan works and since you just argued a few moments ago that people do not understand finance you've now wandered into paradox land.

The bonds are backed by the federal government so that in the advent of failure the money will still be paid. This then allows the market to offer a reduced interest rate. This is the same process as student loans and mortgages that are offered with backing by the federal government. When the government backs the loan or bond this then creates incentive on behalf of potential investors to participate in the market. That's the entire premise behind government backed securities. The incentive is created because it takes all risk out thereby guaranteeing that no matter what happens the investor will not suffer a loss. The fact that the stadium is likely to create revenue only adds further market incentive to invest. Stating that the stadium did make money therefore there was no need for the government backing is using hindsight reasoning. This was the point I was making to you yesterday in the discussion with Afghanistan.

You are using knowledge that you have now and then retroactively applying that knowledge to something that happened yesterday. It is a illogical to do this. You cannot state that because X is now generating revenues that this therefore means there was zero risk when investing into X initially. It is generating revenues now months after the government invested into the project. But that doesn't negate the fact that at the time of creation X had a risk factor. Use some common sense here.

The city benefits from this arena. It doesn't cost them money. That's why they made the deal. In the "old days" cities used to pay for these developments themselves out of the taxpayer dime, but they don't now because they're much smarter.

The first part of this paragraph contradicts the last part of this paragraph. If the city invested in this arena in order to make money because of the likely revenue generation then that means the city used taxpayer money to invest. The argument Benen has presented is that government investments created the stadium and thereby allowed for the revenue generation. He is making a symbiosis argument. You are decrying the argument as false, yet your first statement concludes that Benen is correct. This is, again, a paradox. I am beginning to see a pattern here.

No, as Steve suggests the interest rate is lower, but there is no doubt given the amount of events that use the place it would have been built regardless.

The state still has to co-operate with construction, you are aware of this yes? The state has to sanction the permits, facilitate the construction of the parking lot, provide water and sewage management for the facility, provide electricity to the stadium and provide the infrastructure to facility the new load of electrical use, provide security, etc. The argument here is, again, the symbiotic relationship of the government and business. Even if we follow your line of reasoning your argument still does not prove Benen incorrect. But beyond this you are postulating a hypothetical and then using the hypothetical as if it is empirical evidence in the real world. I am getting ever so confused by the bloggers who engage in this type of argument....

The New York Times article you referenced in fact argues that stadiums are financed by issuing bonds which is the argument Benen presented that you are stating is untrue. The article does not explain at any point that a new system has been created nor, indeed, would that be relevant since the particular stadium being referenced on this blog was built using bonds.

But while other cities raised or introduced taxes to pay for their stadiums, the project's chief cheerleader, Gov. William T. Cahill, promised that the racetrack would pay for itself and Giants Stadium, and that taxpayers would not be liable. In effect, the state gambled on gambling.

To ensure that there was enough money, the racetrack in the Meadowlands was allowed to keep 12 percent of each dollar bet as opposed to 5 percent at other tracks in New Jersey. That way, more cash would be available for other building projects and any excess would be sent to the state.

Did not you just argue that everything done here, according to the article, was in fact a good thing for the state because it would generate revenue and therefore was evidence against public involvement and debt?

That would be awesome!! Except for the fact that most GOPers, I suspect, dislike and fear "rock"(ing) and/or "roll"(ing). Sounds too much like dirty shenanigans to their sex-obsessed minds :-)

The GOP has always had a difficult relationship with rock music. Sometimes the lyrics get too confusing and difficult for them to understand.

I recall how during the 1984 campaign they wanted to use John Mellencamp's "Pink Houses", because some GOPer heard the line "Ain't that America?".

Then they wanted to use Springsteen's "Born in the USA", without getting what the song was about.

In 2000, the theme of the Bush campaign was The Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again". Again, GOPers failed to grasp the meaning of the song.

I think this is why the Republicans usually choose country songs for their campaigns, the simple and easy-to-understand lyrics. Except them Dixie Chickens, then again those three ain't real 'muricans.

It really wouldn't suprise me if the RNC used "We Built This City". It'd be a good metaphor for their current presidential campaign: a cheesy relic from the Decade of Greed.