Real Welfare Queens

mykevermin

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public...&File_id=b7b23f66-2d60-4d5a-8bc5-8522c7e1a40e

(Yeah, I'm citing OK Sen. Tom Coburn.)

In 2010, the registered NFL nonprofit alone received $184 million from its 32 member teams. It holds over $1 billion in assets. Together with its subsidiaries and teams – many of which are for-profit, taxed entities – the NFL generates an estimated $9 billion annually. Each of its teams are among the top 50 most expensive sports teams in the world, ranking alongside the world’s famous soccer teams. Almost half of professional football teams are valued at over $1 billion….

League commissioners and officials benefit from the nonprofit status of their organizations. Roger Goodell, commissioner of the NFL, reported $11.6 million in salary and perks in 2010 alone. Goodell’s salary will reportedly reach $20 million in 2019. Steve Bornstein, the executive vice president of media, made $12.2 million in 2010. Former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue earned $8.5 million from the league in 2010. The league paid five other officials a total of $19.2 million in just one year. In comparison, the next highest salary of a traditional nonprofit CEO is $3.4 million.
Click to expand...

Other welfare queens include the NHL and PGA. Though, given the lockout, the NHL is currently a nonprofit of a different stripe. :lol:

So, yeah, the NFL charges you a couple hundred dollars for an "authentic" jersey, profits massively, and pays no taxes. Think about that next time you see someone pay for a candy bar with their EBT card. You're certainly allowed to continue to have disdain for people who abuse welfare, but please, have a little perspective.
 
Bigger corporations are bigger welfare queens. Isn't that a given fact?
And besides, who the hell seriously thought it was a good idea to give taxpayer money to build a stadium that ends up ripping off its attendees?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Though, given the lockout, the NHL is currently a nonprofit of a different stripe. :lol:[/QUOTE]
You absolute son of a bitch.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']There are black NFL players.

Therefore, you're racist for making this topic.[/QUOTE]
There are uncles who molest children.

Therefore, you are a pedophile for picking that username.
 
[quote name='detectiveconan16']Bigger corporations are bigger welfare queens. Isn't that a given fact?[/quote]

Perhaps, though since the public is often fooled into thinking of these tax breaks as "incentives" that help business grow (i.e., tax breaks increase economic activity, and therefore revenues, often paying for themselves - the generic Reaganomics argument), it's important to constantly acknowledge that they do not.

We witness the "welfare queens" in our faces - they're in line in front of us at the store, buying gummy bears with their Access cards. We don't witness corporate welfare in front of our faces in the same way, so it simply doesn't produce the same kind of ire or demands to end it now. People aren't clamoring for Roger Goodell to take a drug test so he can continue to receive his welfare check, yet the public recently passed laws demanding that of the poor in Florida and (Texas?). Even if the cost of said drug tests ends up being more than the savings from cutting people off of welfare for failing them.

annnnnyway.

This isn't just "welfare queen," this is "The fucking NFL is legally classified as a nonprofit and pays zero dollars in federal income tax." That is more than a subsidy or tax break, it's an outright abomination.

And besides, who the hell seriously thought it was a good idea to give taxpayer money to build a stadium that ends up ripping off its attendees?
Click to expand...

LOOOOOOOOADS of people thought it was a great idea over the past few decades. Teams and leagues paid people to put together bullshit economic proposals about how the new stadium would make
 
[quote name='Brak']This thread title sounds like a new TLC show.[/QUOTE]
Actually, there was actually a show like this called TV Nation by Michael Moore back in the 90's. Three guesses as to why that show didn't last that long.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']There are uncles who molest children.

Therefore, you are a pedophile for picking that username.[/QUOTE]
Goddamn...this has to be the burn of the year in vs. Kudos, good sir, kudos.:applause:
 
Great thread!!! No taxpayer money to any private corporation, company, or citizen. End all welfare. Sounds awesome to me.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Goddamn...this has to be the burn of the year in vs. Kudos, good sir, kudos.:applause:[/QUOTE]

Have to agree.

Showing how completely stupid and asinine that "logic" is was quite the burn.

Glad to know it wasn't my "logic" to begin with.
 
[quote name='egofed']Great thread!!! No taxpayer money to any private corporation, company, or citizen. End all welfare. Sounds awesome to me.[/QUOTE]
A concept I'll never quite understand.
Social welfare dates all the way back to Elizabethan times. Throughout history, great societies felt they were obligated to help the needy , crippled and disenfranchised.
Corporate Welfare on the other hand , is a purely American idea.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You tell me. As I said, it wasn't my stupid and asinine "logic" to begin with.[/QUOTE]
*sigh* Logic provides the framework of the statement, but you unironically actually make tenuous connections like that ALL THE TIME. The fact that you were being facetious here doesn't change that fact. So for you to make a comment like that is awfully pedestrian and it's woefully uninspired. RvB, on the otherhand, took your pseudo Poe's Law tripe and took it to the next level. He satirized your post so far into the realm of absurdity that it's meta. THAT, is what makes it the Burn of the Year. You? You're just punking yourself.

[quote name='mykevermin']jesus christ, you two...[/QUOTE]
What can I say? I love troll bait?:lol:

edit: Now that I had to explain the "joke," I'm just going to sit back like The Watchmaker and enjoy the show.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"A concept I'll never quite understand.
Social welfare dates all the way back to Elizabethan times. Throughout history, great societies felt they were obligated to help the needy , crippled and disenfranchised.
Corporate Welfare on the other hand , is a purely American idea."

Hence why we have always had a "moocher" class of citizen who scams the system. Incentives drive all human decisions and actions.
 
[quote name='egofed']"A concept I'll never quite understand.
Social welfare dates all the way back to Elizabethan times. Throughout history, great societies felt they were obligated to help the needy , crippled and disenfranchised.
Corporate Welfare on the other hand , is a purely American idea."

Hence why we have always had a "moocher" class of citizen who scams the system. Incentives drive all human decisions and actions.[/QUOTE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
 
[quote name='dohdough']What can I say? I love troll bait?:lol:[/QUOTE]

And no one is surprised.

Just like fish love fish bait...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']And no one is surprised.

Just like fish love fish bait...[/QUOTE]

That's no way to justify what you do to those poor, innocent children.
 
[quote name='egofed']Incentives drive all human decisions and actions.[/QUOTE]

Clearly not true. I see altruism every day, even in this age of skepticism.
 
Man, I hope you are right, Camoor. I could argue that an incentive still exists.

From the wiiki:"Much debate exists as to whether "true" altruism is possible. Some[who?] argue that no act of sharing, helping or sacrificing can be described as truly altruistic, as the actor may receive an intrinsic reward in the form of personal gratification. The validity of this argument depends on whether intrinsic rewards qualify as "benefits."
 
[quote name='egofed']Man, I hope you are right, Camoor. I could argue that an incentive still exists.

From the wiiki:"Much debate exists as to whether "true" altruism is possible. Some[who?] argue that no act of sharing, helping or sacrificing can be described as truly altruistic, as the actor may receive an intrinsic reward in the form of personal gratification. The validity of this argument depends on whether intrinsic rewards qualify as "benefits."[/QUOTE]

Semantics and metaphysics.

Even so I refute that argument. While much altruism may provide a side benefit of making the altruistic person feel good about himself, think about examples like when a soldier jumps on a grenade to save his fellow soldiers. The soldier isn't going to live long enough to feel good about his decision.

Now - I think it's incredibly naive to believe that the social safety net can be eradicated and replaced by the altruistic whims of individuals. But there are an awful lot of folks out there who are simply motivated to do good works, whether it be taking a lesser-paying job with govt to help folks or donating their time to charity organizations.
 
I had an interesting discussion with a friend a while back about whether there was any such thing as true altruism. His argument (and he's one that does a good bit of volunteering etc.) against was that even if there's not financial reward people get the benefit of feeling good about themselves out of helping others--the personal gratification point made above.

Still a noble effort to be sure, but true altruism is defined as doing something that doesn't benefit the individual at all (or even harms them) to help others. It is semantics, but words are also useless if not used as defined. Something like the solider jumping on a grenade to save others is an example of true altruism as defined, since that's giving one's life in an instant to save others. Volunteering at the soup kitchen is a good deed for sure, but may not fit the definition of pure altruism.

But yes, there are lots of good people out there who give there time and/or money to help others regardless of what we want to call it. And yes, it's no substitute for a social safety net. If it was we would have never needed a safety net in the first place, and we wouldn't still have people going hungry, living in the streets etc. despite having a safety net.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Volunteering at the soup kitchen is a good deed for sure, but may not fit the definition of pure altruism.[/QUOTE]

Especially if your name is Paul Ryan ZING
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But yes, there are lots of good people out there who give there time and/or money to help others regardless of what we want to call it. And yes, it's no substitute for a social safety net. If it was we would have never needed a safety net in the first place, and we wouldn't still have people going hungry, living in the streets etc. despite having a safety net.[/QUOTE]

When I heard Ron Paul proposing that I couldn't believe it. How can people not see that American libertarians are a total joke.
 
Just because someone has a different opinion of what taxpayer money should be used for makes them a joke? Did you want your taxes funding Bush's wars? Are you against corporate subsidies? Do you support endowments for the arts? Families and charities should be there for the poor. Maybe an ultra strict 6 month limit for any kind of government welfare(TANF,SNAP). After that, you reap what you sow. People will not change unless they are forced to.
 
[quote name='egofed']Just because someone has a different opinion of what taxpayer money should be used for makes them a joke? Did you want your taxes funding Bush's wars? Are you against corporate subsidies? Do you support endowments for the arts? Families and charities should be there for the poor. Maybe an ultra strict 6 month limit for any kind of government welfare(TANF,SNAP). After that, you reap what you sow. People will not change unless they are forced to.[/QUOTE]

No, the idea that the social safety net could be replaced by charity donations from individuals is a joke.

If you want the poor and unemployed to be absolutely wretched and destitute then at least have the honesty to state that. But don't pretend that privately-run soup kitchens and doctors donating their time is going to pick up the slack. Mark my words - there is no such thing as a libertarian Christian and anyone who tells you otherwise is a dirty liar.

I am against most corporate subsidies. I don't worry about corporations, they exist to make profit and if they fold then it's 'too bad, so sad'.
 
Hahahahah...I'm a libertarian Christian. I want inmates in jail to be miserable. The incentive to never again be incarcerated should be the huge discomfort and misery they experience. I don't want people on long term welfare assistance to be comfortable. I want them to eat bland, nutritionally balanced foods, to be denied any entertainment programming or videogames (make em only watch Foxnews;-) ), and to basically have the barest minimum of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. They should be studying hours a day to educate themselves on skills that will aid them in their future job hunts. Shouldn't we expect more for our money than mere civil obedience? We need to make them "hungry" to better their position in life. I want to believe that people are not entirely selfish, that they wish for their kids to be better off than they are, and will sacrifice to make it so. And, if parents on welfare are not willing to do this, then do we truly want them teaching morals and life lessons to their offspring? My Christian belief is that God wants us to help the poor personally, a forced "donation" taken by an oppressive government by threat of harm is not very Christlike.
As far as subsidies, which are you in favor of? I think the government should be all about "equal application of policy" when tax money is involved. Bailing out some, but not all businesses is hypocritical.
 
[quote name='egofed']Hahahahah...I'm a libertarian Christian. I want inmates in jail to be miserable. The incentive to never again be incarcerated should be the huge discomfort and misery they experience. I don't want people on long term welfare assistance to be comfortable. I want them to eat bland, nutritionally balanced foods, to be denied any entertainment programming or videogames (make em only watch Foxnews;-) ), and to basically have the barest minimum of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. They should be studying hours a day to educate themselves on skills that will aid them in their future job hunts. Shouldn't we expect more for our money than mere civil obedience? We need to make them "hungry" to better their position in life. I want to believe that people are not entirely selfish, that they wish for their kids to be better off than they are, and will sacrifice to make it so. And, if parents on welfare are not willing to do this, then do we truly want them teaching morals and life lessons to their offspring? My Christian belief is that God wants us to help the poor personally, a forced "donation" taken by an oppressive government by threat of harm is not very Christlike.
As far as subsidies, which are you in favor of? I think the government should be all about "equal application of policy" when tax money is involved. Bailing out some, but not all businesses is hypocritical.[/QUOTE]

Your thinking is rather simplistic and not in line with Christian thinking. You can make up whatever personality you like for your god but this viewpoint does not align with what Jesus Christ said.

Corporate welfare - this is probably more of a personal preference area but I support subsidies and/or incentives for initiatives that do public good, such as green energy initiatives or private charities. Of course they must be properly regulated. I don't see why that would be hypocritical, seeing as I believe in a social democracy and have never claimed to be conservative in the slightest.
 
[quote name='egofed']I want inmates in jail to be miserable. [/QUOTE]

Which gospel is that from?

Also, capitalism is inherently sinful according to Christian doctrine prior to the Calvinists - so, historically, God don't give a fuck about yo' profit margins, other than acknowledging that having them at all sends you closer to hell.
 
I fail every day in living up to what Jesus Christ said,;-), that doesn't negate the fact that I have accepted Him as my Savior. Read my previous post about the miracle I experienced in my own life for a testament as to why I have my faith.
And as far as the inmates, that's my quote, not Jesus.;-) I do believe that God intended for their to be consequences to our actions and choices. And the whole "render onto Caesar" thing makes me think that He wishes to see our "profits" go towards helping others, but maybe not thru threats of force and imprisonment. I don't think He would agree with that.
 
[quote name='egofed']I fail every day in living up to what Jesus Christ said,;-), that doesn't negate the fact that I have accepted Him as my Savior. Read my previous post about the miracle I experienced in my own life for a testament as to why I have my faith.
And as far as the inmates, that's my quote, not Jesus.;-) I do believe that God intended for their to be consequences to our actions and choices. And the whole "render onto Caesar" thing makes me think that He wishes to see our "profits" go towards helping others, but maybe not thru threats of force and imprisonment. I don't think He would agree with that.[/QUOTE]

The unabashed cognitive dissonance here is astounding.
 
If there is one thing I've learned about the religious, it's that god said whatever the fuck they want to believe. The "word of god" doesn't shape them, they shape the word of god.
 
Kind of funny that things haven't changed all that much from Roman times. As a society we still have no problem with state-funded gladiatorial games. Conservatives may be a little more coy about their derision for mercy and charity but it still lurks there, under the surface, same as it did before Christ.

At least we seem to be a little less bloodthirsty about our sports. When it comes to human nature, I guess that's about all that 2000 years of 'progress' buys you...
 
[quote name='Clak']If there is one thing I've learned about the religious, it's that god said whatever the fuck they want to believe. The "word of god" doesn't shape them, they shape the word of god.[/QUOTE]

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony
 
Real sad how most people fall into the false idea that stadiums are an investment which will benefit the city.
"As University of Chicago economist Allen Sanderson memorably put it, “If you want to inject money into the local economy, it would be better to drop it from a helicopter than invest it in a new ballpark.”"

Quote is from this excellent article.
Why Do Mayors Love Sports Stadiums?
http://www.thenation.com/article/162400/why-do-mayors-love-sports-stadiums

A related video on this:
http://www.thenation.com/video/162302/stadium-status-why-are-taxpayers-funding-billionaires-stadiums1

Thanks for sharing the initial article Myke.
 
[quote name='egofed']Hahahahah...I'm a libertarian Christian.[/QUOTE]

Never get this oxymoron. Worship of capital and capitalists and worship of a poor man who disdained the rich.

"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:23-24

Total and complete cognitive dissonance courtesy of "faith."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top