RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Gambling On Gambling - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Gambling On Gambling Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Martin 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 8,009
  • Joined: 02-July 03

Posted 08 November 2019 - 08:25 AM

The liberals are delighted that the Democratic candidate, Beshear, won the governorship of Kentucky over the Republican incumbent, Bevin. One of the main reasons for Bevin's defeat was the activism of Kentucky teachers, incensed that Bevin tried to cut their pensions. Bevin had reason to try to do so, as Kentucky has the greatest unfunded pension liability of all fifty states at $50 billion. How to pay that? His successful challenger, Andy Beshear proposes to fund it by legalizing gambling in Kentucky.

Andy Beshear touts expanded gambling as way to fund pensions
http://kentuckytoday...-pensions,19024

Asked how he could make expanded gambling a reality in Kentucky when his father and other supporters couldn't, Andy Beshear told reporters: "What they've never done is tie 100% of the proceeds of expanded gaming to our pension system." Kentucky, which has one of the worst-funded public pension systems in the country, could reap up to $500 million a year by legalizing expanded gambling, said Beshear, the state's current attorney general. Much of that money now flows to other states where Kentuckians gamble at casinos, he said. An influx of gambling revenue would free up state funds for education and health care, he said.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fifty billion dollars divided by five hundred million comes out to 100. It would take a century of the purported revenue saved by getting Kentuckians to gamble in Kentucky to fund that $50 billion unfunded pension liability. But, wait, there is more. Up in Chicago, which also has a sizable unfunded pension liability, Mayor Lightfoot is proposing to cover that unfunded liability by promoting casino gambling:


"[W]e are pursuing a Chicago casino that creates a dedicated revenue stream to pay for our pension costs," Lightfoot said in her State of the City address last month. "If we get the tax structure right, this will create thousands of jobs help fund the State's capital plan and stop the flow of over $200 million in gaming revenue to Indiana."

http://www.chicagoma...cagos-Pensions/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

These figures might seem inflated, but the Indiana Gambling Commission reports its state's casinos draw about $2.2 billion a year. Promoters of legal gambling in Texas claim that Texans spend $2.5 billion a year on gambling in other states, hence they tout an economic benefit if the state legislature legalized gambling in Texas. I don't vouch for the accuracy of that figure. Nor do I make a moral judgment on the ethics of making money from gambling although I refuse to use the euphemism "gaming."

Instead, my question is whether there won't be a considerable amount of cannibalization of gambling revenue when one state after another legalizes gambling to keep its gamblers' money in-state. Money now spent on gambling in Kentucky, which Governor-elect Beshear wants to fund pensions with, will no longer be spent in Indiana and cannot be spent in Chicago. Casinos in Chicago will draw revenue from gambling in Indiana and Kentucky. If Texas gambling interests succeed in keeping $2.5 billion a year within Texas, doesn't that mean $2.5 billion a year less revenue for Louisiana, Oklahoma and New Mexico? I can understand each state wanting to increase its share of the gambling market, but do they understand that when a market is glutted there is inevitably a shake-out? How many of those casinos are going to fall far short of their promoters' expectations because promoters in other states are doing the same thing, only to be disappointed in expected revenue for the identical reason?


This post has been edited by Martin: 08 November 2019 - 08:27 AM

0

#2 User is offline   Severian 

  • Order of the Seekers for Truth & Penitence
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 14,744
  • Joined: 14-February 04

Posted 08 November 2019 - 11:37 AM

Hey, if you can push "sin" to balance the budget, what next? Government run distilleries? Government run bordellos? Government crack houses and opium dens?

As a libertarian, I don't think "sin" items should be illegal as long as you don't impact anyone else, but I also don't think government should be in the business of pushing and profiting off of human weaknesses.
0

#3 User is offline   Martin 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 8,009
  • Joined: 02-July 03

Posted 08 November 2019 - 11:47 AM

View PostSeverian, on 08 November 2019 - 11:37 AM, said:

Hey, if you can push "sin" to balance the budget, what next? Government run distilleries? Government run bordellos? Government crack houses and opium dens?


There are eighteen states which hold monopolies on liquor stores.
0

#4 User is online   johnnybravo 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 3,922
  • Joined: 16-July 03

Posted 09 November 2019 - 08:55 AM

Texas will never have casinos, other than the one in Eagles Nest, for the exact reason that it would destroy Ruidoso, Santa Fe, all Oklahoma and Louisiana casinos. It would also hit Colorado casinos. I am 100% positive that a lot of Texas politicians are getting paid very well by those states to keep Texas from allowing casinos. Makes me pretty sick to think about it because they always blame the Bible thumpers and not the crooks.
0

#5 User is offline   Martin 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 8,009
  • Joined: 02-July 03

Posted 09 November 2019 - 09:57 AM

View Postjohnnybravo, on 09 November 2019 - 08:55 AM, said:

Texas will never have casinos, other than the one in Eagles Nest, for the exact reason that it would destroy Ruidoso, Santa Fe, all Oklahoma and Louisiana casinos. It would also hit Colorado casinos. I am 100% positive that a lot of Texas politicians are getting paid very well by those states to keep Texas from allowing casinos. Makes me pretty sick to think about it because they always blame the Bible thumpers and not the crooks.


The voters of Galveston have rejected casino gambling every time it came to a public vote although there are gambling boats operating out of Galveston. The city's main business is tourism and the voters want to maintain a family atmosphere among their resorts. They notice that after Atlantic City legalized casino gambling the town enjoyed only a brief burst of economic growth yet social conditions such as crime got worse. Furthermore, the national proliferation of casino gambling caused the Atlantic City casinos to fall far short of their projected revenue.
0

#6 User is offline   tailgunner 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 2,901
  • Joined: 09-April 03

Posted 09 November 2019 - 07:55 PM

NYS is loaded with casinos and what is called "quick draw" (Keno) in every bar. Still going broke.
0

#7 User is offline   Hieronymous 

  • Men with ropes around their necks don't always hang
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 9,190
  • Joined: 16-April 09

Posted 09 November 2019 - 10:48 PM

View PostMartin, on 08 November 2019 - 11:47 AM, said:

There are eighteen states which hold monopolies on liquor stores.

I know in Michigan the state sets the price of liquor. There are no state run liquor stores, but the stores that sell it have to have a license from the state, and they buy it from state run warehouses.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users