Published: Wednesday, May 14 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
"All those years ago, LaGuardia understood why it was important to resist an
industry that lures people to spend hard-earned money on false hopes." Ok,
the gaming industry lies to us, but we are lied to all the time from all sides.
Almost all advertising asserts falsehoods. Especially egregious are the adds
for for-profit trade schools which use actors posing as students to lure
unsuspecting kids into their largely worthless programs. Do you care about
that?Most people who gamble, and I mean most, know that it is an
entertainment EXPENSE. Once a month my wife and I trek to Malad to make our
monthly donation to Idaho education. We do it because it is a day outing. Yes,
we check to see if we won anything, but we haven't won more than a few
bucks yet. Public lotteries represent a relatively painless way to tax. Also, day trading is gambling. But in your minds it's legitimate.
Why the difference?
Stripping out talk of "rights", "entertainment", accusations of
dishonesty in advertising, and looking right at the actual, consistent effects
of gambling, it is mathematically and socially just not a good idea. It is
effectively a "poor people tax" (being encouraged by lawmakers who are
further and further paying to said people out of other people's
pockets).Now here we are, trying to pass yet another "Okay,
let's follow already-established sober-minded law, for realsies from now
on" bill that will probably be shot down by those advocating social
marxist,too funny!since someone lies to us, it's OK
for others to lie to us. TOO FUNNY!gambling is a tax on the
gullibleWant to make a contribution to education? Go to the local
district offices and give them the check for what you would be giving to Idaho.
And very little of the $1 lottery ticket price actually goes for education -
MOST goes for prizes and administrative overhead
Re: Lost in DC "..MOST goes for prizes and administrative overhead."
MOST goes for prizes? That's better than I thought. Overhead? Why would
a lottery be different from other public funds? Anyway, I'm open to any
information. Hard data?
However, to support your point, expanded internet gambling will accelerate the
accumulation of wealth at the top. It will be another piece in a global
capitalism which serves the top, leaving the less well off with even less. So
maybe you're right.
Making gambling illegal will not stop the bad effects of gambling. First gambling is fun. It is quick, easy and exciting. If that were all that
it is, there would be no reason to control it. But because it competes with the
other gambols of our life it threatens the profits of some very important
people. It is when gambling is for the purpose of hope that it
becomes something harmful to the individual and his family and others who depend
on him for their hope. Gambling for hope of a better life becomes the last
chance for those who have been robbed of hope by our society's robbers of
hope. The robbers of hope are those people and organizations that
discriminate and place blocks and obstacles in the way of equal opportunity and
equal justice for all.
If gambling were to be phased out, whence would come the replacement funds upon
which states now depend? Expanding gambling opportunities has been a convenient
way to maintain high-revenue tax sources without bothering the Aristocratic
class that has been emerging for the past thirty years with higher taxes. Utah
has the convenience of a low population and exploitable land that has been
allocated for the benefit of other states, while Hawaii likewise avoids the lure
of gambling outlets because of consistent revenue from tourism. One
broad strategy would be to overhaul our special-interest oriented tax code and
empower localities to address the reasons why spending time gambling is chosen
over more worthy pursuits and encourage/provide opportunities accordingly. But
alas, when we elect dunces like Chaffetz, we will reap lousy, uncreative ideas
that don't actually address long term issues.
Sheldon Adelson writes a bill to crush online gambling because he doesn't
like the competition and Chafffetz, who we all know has absolutely no ideas of
his own, is serving as his personal errand boy. It'll be interesting to see
what kind of campaign contribution he gets s for this. Business as usual in
Gambling is fun. Plus, whether I wanted to do it on the net (I don't) or if
I choose to drive out of state to pursue it along with the benefits of comp beer
(I do), I get to provide revenue to states that don't put on airs of being
too high minded and self righteous to accept such revenue. That, after all, is
just an act.
Marxist,here is what I could find, and lottery offices are not too open
about it.in 2013 the Kansas state lottery paid 56.6% of its proceeds
in prizes. If I remember correctly from my time spent in Seattle, the WA state
lotter is about the same. All state agencies have overhead, but they
do not need to pay vendors (that gas station in Malad) to sell the tickets, so
there is another layer of overhead. The vendor who sells the
winning ticket gets even more in some cases. IN CA it's a flat 5% win or
lose. So, yep, over 60% to the winners and the vendors. Other
research has shown that states with lotteries allocate less from their general
funds to education, so education funding does not increase with lotteries -
it's all a lie to tax the gullible.Want to help education?
gift money to your local district. Get you car washed by the cheerleaders at
their fundraisers. buy fireworks from the high school band's fireworks
You know I guess I don't understand the concept of limited government
intervention and freedom to choose. The same people who complain about the new
laws related to healthier school lunches, and the laws related to limited soda
pop consumption, are ok with limited gambling. Their logic for limiting
gambling is financial health which I guess should be legislated, but personal
health shouldn't. Sounds a bit hypocritical to me.
Internet gambling is Interstate gambling. The Constitution clearly authorizes
Congress to regulate Interstate Commerce.If you want something for
nothing, you'll gamble. Fortunately, most of the time, you'll lose.
If you want to learn from the school of hard knocks, be my guest. Throw away
your hard-earned money to get "something for nothing".
Marxist, your last statement cracks me up. Day trading is as much gambling as
driving on Utah freeways. With gambling you get your money back or make a
profit about 5% of the time. When I day trade, I make my money back 100% of the
time with money to spare.
This is a VERY dangerous bill. Once you give the federal government the
authority to shut down a category of websites, free speech, alternative news,
gun and religious websites are next.Religious websites? Yes,
centralized governments cannot compete with God or unalienable rights from
God.Agree or disagree with their contents, gambling websites are
covered under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, "Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."The bill or subsequent bills would deny citizens their free agency. It
empowers government to choose winners (like Vegas and Atlantic City) and losers
(Internet competitors).Policing this would also be a nightmare. It
would involve software, hardware, routers, switches, payment gateways, payment
systems, etc. The cost of enforcement would soar to billions.--Robert Stevens, Provo, Utah
Robert Stevens.Some sat truth for you is that you don't live in
a nation ruled by God, and despite what some people may think, there are no such
things as unalienable rights. Religion tries to control both the mind and body,
thought and actions, of its members, our government is only concerned with the
control over a persons actions. There is no competitive contest with God or
religion, a person may think and believe as he pleases, but his actions may not
be contrary to government law. In effect, every rule and regulation
has the same authority and power of the Constitution and amends the Constitution
until it is struck down by the court. So all the laws, rules and regulations
are indeed amendments to the Constitution.
Ultra Bob,no such thing as unalienable rights?Thomas Jefferson
would disagreea person may think and believe as he pleases, but his
actions may not be contrary to government law. George Mason, Thomas
Jefferson, and James Madison - those men behind the Bill of Rights - would
disagree. Government law cannot interfere with religion (1st amendment)
From the Declaration of Independence:We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and
the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men,...The people who wrote the Declaration of
Independence seems to believe that it is necessary for government to secure
those rights. Can rights be both unalienable and require government to secure
them at the same time? The words of politicians often bend the truth when it
suits their needs. The classic example of government override of
religious action is the prohibition of human sacrifice.
Americans can still spend $3-$4 billion a year gambling on foreign-operated
igambling, what makes you think stopping states from legalizing online gambling
will do anything to stop igambling? It won't. Let's be clear, this
bill doesn't "restore" the Wire Act, it rewrites the 50+ year old
bill to create, for the first time, a federal prohibition on igambling. One need
only look at Bobby Kennedy's testimony in 1961 (as US AG he introduced
bills including the wire act targeting organized crime) to see the Wire Act was
meant to be a weapon against racketeering/organized crime: "It cannot be
overemphasized that this bill is designed, first to *assist the States and
Territories in the enforcement of their laws* pertaining to gambling and like
offenses...the federal government is not undertaking the almost impossible task
of dealing with all the many forms of casual or social wagering which so often
may be effected over communication facilities; This legislation can be a most
effective weapon in dealing' with one of the major factors of organized
crime in this country without invading the privacy of the home or outraging the
sensibilities of our people in matters of personal inclinations and morals"
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments