Posted by moy23 on 7/25/2015 10:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/25/2015 7:40:00 AM (view original):
He votes with his wallet.    And Trump makes money.   Therefore, Trump good.

Yes but Walker lowered or maintained property taxes 6 years straight. He also cut $250 million from UW over the next 2 years and $600 million from the infrastructure budget, reducing the $1.3 billion initial request. He's done a lot to improve the state's welfare system so that tax payer money is used more appropriately and he's smart enough to know to keep the milwaukee bucks and the $6.5 in annual income revenue they provide. His crowning achievement is Act 10 which now 4 years later even the biggest naysayers are utilising to save money. The RESULTS... Walker took a $3.6 billion deficit and turned it into $500 million surplus.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/nov/15/scott-walker/gov-scott-walker-says-he-turned-36-billion-deficit/



That's the kind of RESULTS (not rhetoric) that speak to me.

Hoooooold the **** on.

There is nothing smart about donating hundreds of millions of public dollars to the Bucks. Especially if you're cutting the infrastructure budget to afford it.

Wisconsin will spend $400M over 20 years for the Milwaukee Bucks stadium, but that's okay because they bring in $6.5M a year? Economics is not moy's strength.

Posted by stinenavy on 7/25/2015 1:40:00 PM (view original):
Wisconsin will spend $400M over 20 years for the Milwaukee Bucks stadium, but that's okay because they bring in $6.5M a year? Economics is not moy's strength.

According to the state Department of Administration, NBA players pay $6.5 million in income taxes to the state of Wisconsin annually and the Bucks add $130 million to Wisconsin's economy each year. NBA salaries are also expected to rise over the next 20 years. This was a bipartisan effort - not just a republican effort.

It's terrible, and it happens on both sides of the political aisle. No credible source can back up any claim that the Bucks add $130 million to the economy. Stop being so dumb.

  BL is right on a portion of this one.  It's not right to donate hundreds of millions of taxpayer money to a privately owned sports franchise just like it was wrong to force American citizens to pay TRILLIONS of dollars into OBAMAs crazy stimulus schemes where losing propositions were artificially propped up only to fail.  Most for them are out of business.  The only ones left standing are the ones still propped up through this crony bureaucracy.  And they are owned or invested in by his friends.  

  Oh yes.  The very new and fresh Obama warmed quickly to wall street and big money and lobbyist.  He justifies it to move forth his radical agenda.  In the end he is no better than any who preceded him and in most ways is worse.  He is the one trying to create a one party dictatorship.  He ignores the Constitution and skirts every procedure and process to bypass law and instill dictates against the people and the will of the nation.  

  And so while I praise Walker for all the wonderful work he has done, I also point out my objection to this state matter which, if carried over into a national level, would be as destructive as the Obama policies have been to the nation over the last 7 years.  And I would add the overall policies of the democrat party have been over the last 60 years.  The democrats have this nation and it's people on it's knees.  The world is in turmoil.  Walker has made one small mistake.  The liberals have a library full of them.  

Posted by bad_luck on 7/25/2015 3:33:00 PM (view original):
It's terrible, and it happens on both sides of the political aisle. No credible source can back up any claim that the Bucks add $130 million to the economy. Stop being so dumb.

Would you have let the bucks pack their bags and leave milwaukee? it was the NBA that demanded a new stadium or they would buy the team and move it - not the owners. The owners and Herb Kohl did come up with an additional $250 million to keep the team in milwaukee because they wanted the team there. I'm sure jobs would have been lost, not to mention that milwaukee district would lose much of its appeal not having a pro team playing there. Also to bring back more revenue amended deal did implement a $2 ticket surcharge which will bring $500,000 in additional annual revenue to the state and $1.5 million to Milwaukee County.

Posted by moy23 on 7/25/2015 4:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/25/2015 3:33:00 PM (view original):
It's terrible, and it happens on both sides of the political aisle. No credible source can back up any claim that the Bucks add $130 million to the economy. Stop being so dumb.

Would you have let the bucks pack their bags and leave milwaukee? it was the NBA that demanded a new stadium or they would buy the team and move it - not the owners. The owners and Herb Kohl did come up with an additional $250 million to keep the team in milwaukee because they wanted the team there. I'm sure jobs would have been lost, not to mention that milwaukee district would lose much of its appeal not having a pro team playing there. Also to bring back more revenue amended deal did implement a $2 ticket surcharge which will bring $500,000 in additional annual revenue to the state and $1.5 million to Milwaukee County.

Yes, I would let them leave. And I'm sure jobs would have been lost. Maybe the state could have done something productive with that $400 million to restore some of those jobs.

And if Milwaukee's appeal is dependent on the Bucks, then Miwaukee was already ******.

It's a terrible, terrible deal for the public. Great deal for the NBA and the Bucks, though.

Which supports more economic activity - the Bucks, or the infrastructure systems that had their funding cut so drastically?  What's the value of all economic activity that utilizes shipping on surface roads?  Look that number up for me quickly and then tell me how great it is that he cut funding for infrastructure and spent on the Bucks.

Trump:

“Finally, I can attack!” Trump said at a packed rally at Oskaloosa High School. “Wisconsin’s doing terribly. It’s in turmoil. The roads are a disaster because they don’t have any money to rebuild them. They’re borrowing money like crazy. They projected a $1 billion surplus, and it turns out to be a deficit of $2.2 billion. The schools are a disaster. The hospitals and education was a disaster. And he was totally in favor of Common Core!”

Moy isn't going to talk positively about Trump anymore.

Posted by stinenavy on 7/25/2015 8:56:00 PM (view original):
Moy isn't going to talk positively about Trump anymore.

I like both candidates. I think both would do a good job. Is there a perfect candidate? No.

Walker will defend his record like he did twice in Wisconsin to get reelected. It's a solid track record. Trump is free to say what he wants... That's his shtick and its what's many find appealing about him.

Posted by dahsdebater on 7/25/2015 7:30:00 PM (view original):
Which supports more economic activity - the Bucks, or the infrastructure systems that had their funding cut so drastically?  What's the value of all economic activity that utilizes shipping on surface roads?  Look that number up for me quickly and then tell me how great it is that he cut funding for infrastructure and spent on the Bucks.

I'm at our lake house in Wisconsin right now. Roads are pretty damn good. MUCH better than Illinois where I live. He curtailed spending in the boondocks of Wisconsin and is going to continue funding the zoo interchange where there is high travel frequency. That makes sense.

To put the $250 million for the bucks in perspective.... Pat Quinn lost the state of Illinois $371 million A YEAR in tax breaks just to keep both Sears and CME in the state. I think the bucks are part of the Milwaukee Brand and that's important to a big city. I live in Chicago and you are a fool if you don't think the Blackhawks aren't bringing in huge revenue for the city and state the last 6 years.

Posted by moy23 on 7/25/2015 9:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by stinenavy on 7/25/2015 8:56:00 PM (view original):
Moy isn't going to talk positively about Trump anymore.

I like both candidates. I think both would do a good job. Is there a perfect candidate? No.

Walker will defend his record like he did twice in Wisconsin to get reelected. It's a solid track record. Trump is free to say what he wants... That's his shtick and its what's many find appealing about him.

Exactly what makes you think that Trump is a credible candidate?

Posted by tecwrg on 7/25/2015 9:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 7/25/2015 9:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by stinenavy on 7/25/2015 8:56:00 PM (view original):
Moy isn't going to talk positively about Trump anymore.

I like both candidates. I think both would do a good job. Is there a perfect candidate? No.

Walker will defend his record like he did twice in Wisconsin to get reelected. It's a solid track record. Trump is free to say what he wants... That's his shtick and its what's many find appealing about him.

Exactly what makes you think that Trump is a credible candidate?

One - I like businessmen. I liked Mitt for the same reason. I think the government, in particular government waste and redundancy, would be better served from the perspective of people that are pros at minimizing these things. They also know how to turn a profit. We need to export more, not import more. I think he can help here. I also think businessmen understand how to create jobs. Trump has personally created more jobs than any other candidate.

Two - He has a backbone and doesn't beat around the bush. It would be refreshing to see a more 'transparent' president. I also think he'll handle foreign affairs better because he wouldn't be drawing fake red lines in the sand.

Three - He has more practical experience for the job than Cruz, Rubio, and a plethora of other Republican candidates.

Four - he has a track record of success.... You don't become a billionaire without one.


Why do you seem to think a businessman without political experience can't run a country? Many of our first presidents were businessmen first.

Posted by moy23 on 7/25/2015 9:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 7/25/2015 7:30:00 PM (view original):
Which supports more economic activity - the Bucks, or the infrastructure systems that had their funding cut so drastically?  What's the value of all economic activity that utilizes shipping on surface roads?  Look that number up for me quickly and then tell me how great it is that he cut funding for infrastructure and spent on the Bucks.

I'm at our lake house in Wisconsin right now. Roads are pretty damn good. MUCH better than Illinois where I live. He curtailed spending in the boondocks of Wisconsin and is going to continue funding the zoo interchange where there is high travel frequency. That makes sense.

To put the $250 million for the bucks in perspective.... Pat Quinn lost the state of Illinois $371 million A YEAR in tax breaks just to keep both Sears and CME in the state. I think the bucks are part of the Milwaukee Brand and that's important to a big city. I live in Chicago and you are a fool if you don't think the Blackhawks aren't bringing in huge revenue for the city and state the last 6 years.

They aren't. Professional sports teams bring huge revenue for themselves. In terms of economic impact, they don't have much impact at all. People don't travel to see sports teams, so it's just locals redirecting entertainment dollars from somewhere else. The jobs that are there are jobs that would exist at restaurants, movie theaters, bars, etc.

If the government has nothing else to do with the money, fine, subsidize away. But if the governor is cutting $400 million from infrastructure and then handing it to a sports team, he's a ******* idiot.