It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Eighteen years after Oriole Park at Camden Yards opened in Baltimore to universal praise — and seasons of sold-out games — baseball fans continue to visit the brick-and-steel park that is often credited with rejuvenating ballpark design.
So is it a success? That depends on who’s defining success.
Former state Sen. Julian L. “Jack” Lapides, a Baltimore Democrat, is one of the Marylanders who from the start opposed using taxpayers’ money to build the stadium. He calls the deal with the Orioles “lousy.”
But Herb Belgrad, who was chairman of the Maryland Stadium Authority when the stadium was built, notes that its purpose was never to create revenue for the state.
“This was not a fiscal project,” Belgrad said. “It was to benefit the citizens.”
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: greencmp
In an economy that is entirely based on a trickle down theory...that is the best you can get: that businesses recieve the major boon. It is no accident that they also recieve the biggest increase in property value and taxation as well, as areas around stadiums tend to be zoned commercial.
a reply to: jefwane
Indeed it has.
Just above this, in my reply, i am talking about the trickle down theory that our economy runs on. And the obvious failures that has left.
On the very face of it, its wrong. To use an analogy...in trickle down, this is our nation all stacked up neatly based on socioeconomic status:
The top row gets fed some nice, high quality corn. But only the top row is being fed. All those rows beneath...they just have to eat what trickles down. You can imagine that the occasional piece of corn may trickle down a couple of rows...but most of what is trickling down is decidedly not food.
That is our economy. You either make it to that top row, or you eat the manure of your overlords.
originally posted by: jefwane
debate whether the statement quoted has merit
I find multiple hypocrysies in the guy that stares back at me in the mirror. Despite how many libertarian leanings I have, this demand for ideological purity on all issues from hardcore libertarians is what keeps me from identifying as one.
In short what I'd like this thread to be about is the statement in the OP. Have the actions of American business and political elite (from both parties) over the past 40 years led to the disenfranchisement and impoverishment of a large segment of the US population.
The disenfranchisement and impoverishment of a large segment of the US population has led to a more militarized police and surveillance state that has diminished the Constitutional rights of all?
Have the actions of these elites that have caused a lack of opportunity for large segments of society to earn a living and better themselves?
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: greencmp
I am a pure capitalist pig. First and foremost, cast aside any presumptions about who you are talking to is....i play devils advocate quite a bit But i am a capitalist pig trying to squeeze every penny from my customers so i can get a nice, fat annual performance bonus and the raise that goes with it. 100%, pure, USDA Prime Capitalist Pig...thats me.
I think there are other assumptions that are incorrect also, but ill leave it at that.
RE: our economy....yes, it is highly regulated. And it is a trickle down economy. The economy is spurred by making money available to the top 1%, in the hopes that they will spend it on investment. That is the "conventional wisdom". And rarely is it deviated from.
And to be honest, it makes sense from a cost/benefit standpoint on the surface.
The only common point of reinjection of funds back into the economy through the lower 99% is via tax credits, and even then they are leveraged by the upper 1%, in a more lucrative way.