A One Percenter Who Gets It

One could argue that you don't get much more One Percent than being the son of a Major League Baseball owner. John Angelos is Executive Vice President of the Orioles MLB franchise, his father is majority owner. I was borderline shocked at the statements he made on twitter compiled by the Washington CBS affiliate.

Orioles VP Angelos Makes Profound Statement Following Baltimore Protests

That said, my greater source of personal concern, outrage and sympathy beyond this particular case is focused neither upon one night’s property damage nor upon the acts, but is focused rather upon the past four-decade period during which an American political elite have shipped middle class and working class jobs away from Baltimore and cities and towns around the U.S. to third-world dictatorships like China and others, plunged tens of millions of good hard-working Americans into economic devastation, and then followed that action around the nation by diminishing every American’s civil rights protections in order to control an unfairly impoverished population living under an ever-declining standard of living and suffering at the butt end of an ever-more militarized and aggressive surveillance state.
The innocent working families of all backgrounds whose lives and dreams have been cut short by excessive violence, surveillance, and other abuses of the Bill of Rights by government pay the true price, an ultimate price, and one that far exceeds the importance of any kids’ game played tonight, or ever, at Camden Yards. We need to keep in mind people are suffering and dying around the U.S., and while we are thankful no one was injured at Camden Yards, there is a far bigger picture for poor Americans in Baltimore and everywhere who don’t have jobs and are losing economic civil and legal rights, and this makes inconvenience at a ball game irrelevant in light of the needless suffering government is inflicting upon ordinary Americans.”

Probably the most profound statement I've seen by anyone on the events in Baltimore and the conditions that have led to it.

In before 'there's plenty of jobs for everyone! And if you don't have one that doesn't pay crap it's your own fault!'

a reply to: jefwane

I would feel much better if he returned the public funds for the ballpark.

96% public funding on $110,000,000 Camden yards

a reply to: jefwane
That entire statement could have been written about the uk, and most eu countries.

a reply to: greencmp

Agreed, I'm against this sort of public funding myself, we're dealing with that in my home state right now as well,but that's not really the issue we're talking about right now is it?

originally posted by: jefwane
a reply to: greencmp

Agreed, I'm against this sort of public funding myself, we're dealing with that in my home state right now as well,but that's not really the issue we're talking about right now is it?

It certainly makes him sound a lot less concerned with the quality of life for the citizens of his home city of Baltimore.

political elite have shipped middle class and working class jobs away from Baltimore and cities and towns around the U.S

Returning those taxpayer dollars to the taxpaying residents would be a heck of a lot more helpful than making a statement.

Additionally, I don't actually know about Baltimore specifically but, these stadiums could be filled with locals selling goods instead of making street sales illegal. Selling things on the street is how our parents and grandparents made it out of the ghettos.

They started businesses because it was still not illegal (or preclusively difficult and costly) to do so.

The real attack as I see it is on business creators, not employees.

a reply to: greencmp

I don't blame those that use legal means to acquire what they have whether it is food stamps or subsidies. The fault is not with the people using the programs the fault is with those who wrote the laws.

a reply to: greencmp

No doubt you are right about the attack on the business creators, forcing those business creators to compete against nations that do not share the same environmental regulations, labor laws, leaves them only one choice, to produce in the nations where they can flush their toxic waste down the sewer and employ 13 year olds in 12 hours shifts for $2 an hour or less.

There is a constitutional way to rectify this, but Tariff has become a dirty word in the past 30 years. I'm all for Fair Trade, but the American working class and middle class has been sacrificed on the altar of Free Trade by politicians of both parties for my entire adult life.

originally posted by: jefwane
a reply to: greencmp

No doubt you are right about the attack on the business creators, forcing those business creators to compete against nations that do not share the same environmental regulations, labor laws, leaves them only one choice, to produce in the nations where they can flush their toxic waste down the sewer and employ 13 year olds in 12 hours shifts for $2 an hour or less.

There is a constitutional way to rectify this, but Tariff has become a dirty word in the past 30 years. I'm all for Fair Trade, but the American working class and middle class has been sacrificed on the altar of Free Trade by politicians of both parties for my entire adult life.

I ought to be against tariffs in the strict libertarian free world economy sense but, I am a constitutional republican and I recognize that tariffs are one of the only authorized sources of income for the federal government.

I would rather have protectionist tariffs than confiscatory income taxes.

I think there is a lot of common ground between anti-corporatist Jeffersonian democrats and libertarians. I just don't believe that all ills which have befallen our nation have been the result of private failings. Indeed, I believe that most private failings have been sponsored or otherwise enabled by government intervention.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: greencmp

I don't blame those that use legal means to acquire what they have whether it is food stamps or subsidies. The fault is not with the people using the programs the fault is with those who wrote the laws.

That's really not that far from my position.

Ultimately, the laws which enable the graft are initiated by the lobbyists but, manifested by the state.

I don't think that giving the state more power will produce positive results so, diminishing state power is the only other option.

Green and Grim,

I really don't think we are all that far apart in our views. However, the binary choice that we have in our available political choices often leaves us at odds. I personally identify as Independent, but I tend to vote mostly Republican. Democrats have become to Communist for me to vote for them except in cases of local politicians who I know personally or as a vote against a Republican who has been too long in office. There is a seriously Fascist part of the GOP that I truly despise. I've voted Libertarian before, but that party has the cohesiveness of a heard of cats.

I feel that the failures that have led us to the point we are now are bi-partisan, but much more than that. Government has failed, private interests have failed, and we as individuals have failed. Government seeks only one thing regardless of the party in power- to increase it's power. Private interests have dropped ethical considerations in the pursuit of profits. We have failed to keep the power of the previous two in check: we demand government fix problems that it is ill suited to address; and at the same time continue to spend our money with businesses that have tossed aside their nationality, ethics, and responsibilities to the people that put them where they are. Also, we have allowed a moral decay through almost every segment of society to set in.

I don't know how to fix the situation we are in as a nation, but it begins by looking in the mirror, and acknowledging our own responsibility for where we find ourselves today. After that looking outward and either rewarding or punishing with or wallets, votes, and other means those that do not share the same vision of where we want to go as a nation.

a reply to: greencmp

Thats abig part of the Problem .

People like it when they hear what they want to hear and ignore the actual actions of the messenger.

I'm not familiar with John Angelos , but be careful of the car salesman that tells you exactly what you wanted to hear.

Focus on the money at the end of the deal and not a word he said to make sure you don't get home a little sore in the bum.

From what you say his action was that: He used tax payers money to profit from
words: The little guy is getting screwed.

On a good note he is not lying. The little guy does get screwed ,but he left out that he is doing some of the screwing as well.

But like I said I'm not familiar with him so maybe other can expose some actions that paint a different picture at the moment?

a reply to: jefwane

Well put and I mostly concur.

The main thing I would add/change is in regards to the argument for more "ethical" businesses. In economics, there are no morals, only successful producers and unsuccessful producers.

The consumer alone stands at the helm when the free market competes and it is he or she who decides what is moral and ethical, not the producers and not the state.

Again, I agree, just had to tack that on as food for thought.

a reply to: jefwane

Ah he just doesn't get the whole NWO/global economy thingy

Absolutely.

Ive been saying for quite a while that playing the disparate economies screws the working class in BOTH nations.

No matter how bad off you are ... you don't have to amass a criminal record like ...

I am so tired of people making convenient excuses and creating distracting soundbites to ultimately benefit their own reputation. This reeks of 'no crisis gone to waste'.

a reply to: greencmp

what you are in effect saying here is that you are more interested in seeing the effect reversed instead of having the cause ceased.

Sure you could give that 96mil back to the taxpayers. And if you spread it based on who paid it in you would put a whole bunch of cash back into the wealthiest pockets. Or you could just give each resident of Baltimore $154. That is what it breaks out to. And in the process you would cease the development (and improvement that comes with it via the facelift and the improvement to the tax base), leaving empty row houses behind.

Is that really being as helpful as you are insinuating here? Would it be more helpful to apply a band aid, or to stop the cuts from happening to begin with?

And is the team not in a partnership with the city? I can personally attest to the mass migrations into the city that happen when people in the region go to one of the games in the city (speaking from the perspective of Dallas and San Antonio). All those fresh dollars coming into the city from the surrounding areas....sounds like a motivation for a partnership to me. The team brings its expensive talent, the city brings the venue. That sounds fair.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: greencmp

what you are in effect saying here is that you are more interested in seeing the effect reversed instead of having the cause ceased.

Sure you could give that 96mil back to the taxpayers. And if you spread it based on who paid it in you would put a whole bunch of cash back into the wealthiest pockets. Or you could just give each resident of Baltimore $154. That is what it breaks out to. And in the process you would cease the development (and improvement that comes with it via the facelift and the improvement to the tax base), leaving empty row houses behind.

Is that really being as helpful as you are insinuating here? Would it be more helpful to apply a band aid, or to stop the cuts from happening to begin with?

And is the team not in a partnership with the city? I can personally attest to the mass migrations into the city that happen when people in the region go to one of the games in the city (speaking from the perspective of Dallas and San Antonio). All those fresh dollars coming into the city from the surrounding areas....sounds like a motivation for a partnership to me. The team brings its expensive talent, the city brings the venue. That sounds fair.

Correct.

Lower taxes (and refund past taxes) to the individuals who originally paid them.

Cut most public services back to bare minimum or non-existence.

Allow individuals to peddle their wares on the street without extensive, complicated and costly regulations and "protection" rackets.

There can be no "partnerships" between public and private interests so, whenever you hear that you know it is a scam.

If what you said was true, Baltimore would be in better shape than before the ballpark was built. It is not.

originally posted by: Snarl
No matter how bad off you are ... you don't have to amass a criminal record like ...

I am so tired of people making convenient excuses and creating distracting soundbites to ultimately benefit their own reputation. This reeks of 'no crisis gone to waste'.

I agree, becoming a violent criminal is a personal choice. Personal choices are the responsibility of the person who chose them.

I worked for $5 an hour for years before I began to assemble the skills which allowed me to discard that helpful but temporary stepping stone. I did not starve and I did not commit violent crimes.

I eventually left the towns that offered low quality of life in search of better pastures. Who is forcing people to stay in the hell hole that is Baltimore?

The basic message of this sort of thing is that wages are so low that everyone is forced to become a violent criminal.

I dismiss that assertion as either immaturity or malice.

a reply to: greencmp

What you are talking about now is something entirely different...and entirely rearward looking, as well as entirely suppositional.

Fact is, the city's people elected a government that was decidedly not libertarian, and fact is that government has entered into taxing and spending. That is what government does, and you will have no argument from me if we are to argue the point made by Thoreau that "the best government is that which governs not at all".

But in reality....that isn't a possibility. The discussion would weigh completely on the philosophical side of things. In reality, the city of Baltimore entered into an agreement with a sports franchise to supply the venue if they would play their games there. The venue can be used for other events, so has multiple incomes available to it. And the venue represents new construction in an area that needed some new construction badly. If the businesses in the area don't feel it is worth their investment to build ancillary businesses....that is a completely separate problem.

But before you blow off the entire stadium...do you have any numbers on the tax revenue it generates for the city?