From KTUL (//%22http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0307/408695.html%22)
quote:
Oklahoma City (AP) - The head of Oklahoma's Republican Party, citing lower-than-expected revenue and escalating social costs, is calling for repeal of the Oklahoma Lottery.
Only 18 months after the first lottery ticket was sold in the state, state Republican Party chairman Tom Daxon says the lottery -- approved with 64 percent of the vote in a statewide referendum in November 2004 -- has not worked out as the voters were led to believe.
Democratic Governor Brad Henry supported a statewide lottery as a way to raise additional revenue for public schools and state colleges and universities.
A spokesman for Henry, Paul Sund, says if Daxon wants the lottery repealed, quote, "he should have at it."
The G-O-P chairman says lottery revenue has consistently been below expectations and that shortfalls have forced lawmakers to dip into other revenue sources to fund education.
Daxon also says an increase in gaming in the state has led to a variety of social problems.
<start clip>
Daxon also says an increase in gaming in the state has led to a variety of social problems.
<end clip>
So is chronically underfunding schools -- which was a problem before the lottery.
Yeah, the entire state is going to hell over a few lottery tickets bought at the corner store.
[}:)]
Does anyone not see the flaw in talking about repealing the lottery and using gaming in the state as the cop out? I think there is a huge difference between casino gambling and buying a lottery ticket. Agreed?
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
Does anyone not see the flaw in talking about repealing the lottery and using gaming in the state as the cop out? I think there is a huge difference between casino gambling and buying a lottery ticket. Agreed?
Bringing the lottery brought the casinos. He is using low lottery revenues as a backdoor to "we should shutdown the casinos"
FYI, the lottery revenues were ADDITIONAL funding, not part of the main funding base for the schools. Like when an employee gets a bonus check. You can't say "bonuses were low so we couldn't pay salary."
How did the lottery bring the casinos?
The lottery is class 3 gaming.
By voting in the lottery, class 3 gaming was then legal in the state of Oklahoma. This means that the native american tribes can then sign a compact with the state regarding class 3 gaming on their land. The only reason they had only bingo before (class 2) is because oklahoma was a class 2 gaming state.
The "casino" vote on the same ballet with the lottery vote was for setting up a compact with the indian tribes and to take a percentage of the profits.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
The lottery is class 3 gaming.
By voting in the lottery, class 3 gaming was then legal in the state of Oklahoma. This means that the native american tribes can then sign a compact with the state regarding class 3 gaming on their land. The only reason they had only bingo before (class 2) is because oklahoma was a class 2 gaming state.
The "casino" vote on the same ballet with the lottery vote was for setting up a compact with the indian tribes and to take a percentage of the profits.
However, weren't the tribes theatening to increase operations on their land with no cut to the state whatsoever? Recent court decisions had allowed a tribe to open high stakes bingo games if any bingo was allowed in the state which it was (but limited to less than $100 pot if memory serves). By passing the lottery we were able to make compacts that gave a share of gaming revenue to the state. If we rescind the lottery it may affect those compacts.
I think since we've opened the door, we may as well keep the lottery going and take whatever income it is providing for education, rather than to cut that stream off, unless the lottery commission winds up being a drain on the state.
Anyone with any sense knew when they were giving us the sales pitch that the $$ benefits touted were grossly over-stated. Same as they have been in other states.
I voted for it anyhow, I'm not a regular player, but I figured if there were others who wanted it that bad, give it to 'em.
Get rid of the lottery. It does no good. It doesn't help education. Very few get more than they put in and it ruins the lives of those who do win big. It helps no one.
To say the lottery benefits no one is a bit much.
The businesses that sell ticket get ancillary business, the winners certainly do benefit, and schools *do* get money from it -- just not as much as projected.
Time for Rico to use his trademarked "Cubs" in flaming letters. [}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
Does anyone not see the flaw in talking about repealing the lottery and using gaming in the state as the cop out? I think there is a huge difference between casino gambling and buying a lottery ticket. Agreed?
No. The only difference I see is the amount of time and $ people spend on each of these activities. As others have said, they are both Class 3 gambling in the eyes of the law.
Some people call this "entertainment," I call it pouring your money down a giant rat hole. The white man stole the Indian's lands and tried to eliminate their culture. Now the Indians are robbing our pockets with casinos and killing people with low-tax cigarettes. Tit for tat, I guess. (I know they are not exactly the same things; no one forces a person to gamble at a casino. Their own stupidity takes care of that.)
Personally, I would like to see all forms of public gambling illegal in Okla. (except for charity bingo & raffles, or the poker night at your kitchen table), but the door has been opened and I know that ain't gonna happen.
How many people do you all know who buy $500 or more in lottery tickets and stay out all hours of the night feeding their lottery ticket addiction? Just curious.
How come republicans are always against having fun?
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
Get rid of the lottery. It does no good. It doesn't help education. Very few get more than they put in and it ruins the lives of those who do win big. It helps no one.
Every time someone buys a ticket, God kills a kitten in Owasso. Please, think of the kittens.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
To say the lottery benefits no one is a bit much.
The businesses that sell ticket get ancillary business, the winners certainly do benefit, and schools *do* get money from it -- just not as much as projected.
Time for Rico to use his trademarked "Cubs" in flaming letters. [}:)]
Actually... Cubs kinda sounds like he has lost a few bucks to the Lottery Criminals....
Had me kinda feeling sorry for him...[:(]
Ah... What the Hell........!
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/Cubs.gif)
As usual, Republicans want their fat cat buddies to be able to gamble at the stock market, but don't want less affluent folks to spend a few bucks a week on a lottery ticket.
quote:
Originally posted by marc
As usual, Republicans want their fat cat buddies to be able to gamble at the stock market, but don't want less affluent folks to spend a few bucks a week on a lottery ticket.
But...but...buying a ticket for a buck at the corner store is causing social problems!
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
How come republicans are always against having fun?
I heard a comparison that democrats are "mom" and republicans are "dad." Mom takes care of you, keeps you fed and makes sure you have a place to sleep. The dads are there to tell you no and delve out punishment to you and anyone that he feel threatens the family.
Hey look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party. An elephant and a fat white guy who is threatened by change.
(http://www.quahog5news.com/content/framegrabs/season1/FG104/038.gif)
Regardless of what people think.... the Government should not play the role of protecting us from ourselves....
Coool new Avatar sgrizzle....!
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
Get rid of the lottery. It does no good. It doesn't help education. Very few get more than they put in and it ruins the lives of those who do win big. It helps no one.
I wish I could ruin my life by winning[:D]
what 'social problems' is the lottery creating that were not present before?
more litter? since when does the GOP care about the environment?
Daxon's argument is asinine. I heard that Proctor & Gamble missed their earnings target last quarter. I guess they had a good run.
I know this may be completely out of line, but how about this:
THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDNT SPEND MONEY IT DOESNT HAVE.
Crazy, I know.
In the interest of full disclosure, I would vote to keep the lottery if it were run as a non-profit. I simply dont care. As long as it isnt costing the state money, it doesnt bother me a bit. I would also vote to approve all classes of gambling in a casino district in Tulsa for all races of people. I think its funny that everyone is ok with the form of gambling most profitable to the casinos but are against it if it involves cards or dice. Slot machines make most of the money at casinos and have the worst payout ratio, yet no one is even talking about getting rid of them while we still ban dice games. Dumb dumb dumb.
The point is, the lottery is not the problem. The problem is an inept government that thought THEY had won the lottery and spent like it before the check cleared. The lottery brought the state an extra $80,000,000.00 in revenue last year and somehow they turned that into a budget crisis. Morons.
The lack of responsibility in our country extends from welfare recipient selling food stamps to play the lottery to the congressmen cutting education budgets counting on lottery money.
So much for the 'lock box.' I say we keep the lottery, but instead of ADDING the revenue to the state budget it creates a new trust account to fund college education for every B student in Oklahoma.
ps. throwing money at schools hasnt done any good in the past 15 years, it probably wont do any now.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
How come republicans are always against having fun?
I have been a registered Democrat for 32 years, vote the Democrat ticket nearly 98% of the time, and I will always be against a state lottery. It is not a partisan or religious issue for me. I just don't think government should be involved in promoting a big state sponsored rat hole (lottery) for people to throw their money into in the hopes of getting rich quick.
I think it quite odd how people foam at the mouth at the bare mention of a tax increase, but get nearly orgasmic about lotteries or casino gambling. I guess it is just a personal thing, but I will never understand how any form of gambling can possibly be considered fun.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
How come republicans are always against having fun?
I have been a registered Democrat for 32 years, vote the Democrat ticket nearly 98% of the time, and I will always be against a state lottery. It is not a partisan or religious issue for me. I just don't think government should be involved in promoting a big state sponsored rat hole (lottery) for people to throw their money into in the hopes of getting rich quick.
I think it quite odd how people foam at the mouth at the bare mention of a tax increase, but get nearly orgasmic about lotteries or casino gambling. I guess it is just a personal thing, but I will never understand how any form of gambling can possibly be considered fun.
It's pretty simple, tax increases are compulsory, lotteries and casino gambling are voluntary.
I read Daxon's comments in the Whirled this morning. I fail to see the connection between the lottery and all these new bankruptcies and foreclosures. He offers nothing other than hyperbole in his argument.
The lottery itself I would think is potentially less detrimental to someone's personal finances than casino gaming. I don't recall ever seeing anyone spend more than $10 at the Quick Trip counter buying lottery tix. Not saying people don't spend more, but they don't disappear into a black hole like a casino for three hours with $300 and come out with nothing. Casinos are designed to retain people and get them to stay until the majority of the money they came with is spent.
I don't recall at the moment which other poster said it, but I agree a government doesn't exist to protect people from their own compulsions or lack of common sense. I'm against government baby-sitting. If people quit going to casinos on their own or quit playing the lottery, those industries will disappear without government intervention. It's supply and demand, if demand goes away, so will the suppliers.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I read Daxon's comments in the Whirled this morning. I fail to see the connection between the lottery and all these new bankruptcies and foreclosures. He offers nothing other than hyperbole in his argument.
The lottery itself I would think is potentially less detrimental to someone's personal finances than casino gaming. I don't recall ever seeing anyone spend more than $10 at the Quick Trip counter buying lottery tix. Not saying people don't spend more, but they don't disappear into a black hole like a casino for three hours with $300 and come out with nothing. Casinos are designed to retain people and get them to stay until the majority of the money they came with is spent.
I don't recall at the moment which other poster said it, but I agree a government doesn't exist to protect people from their own compulsions or lack of common sense. I'm against government baby-sitting. If people quit going to casinos on their own or quit playing the lottery, those industries will disappear without government intervention. It's supply and demand, if demand goes away, so will the suppliers.
People lose hundreds or thousands at casinos and maybe $10 on the lottery. It's $1 to play powerball. If you pay $20, they aren't going to draw 20 times. Just doesn't happen.
Lottery tickets have helped people like quiktrip who were losing customers due to the changes in tobacco tax.
If you're really concerned with people overspending, make casinos cash-only and ban atm's from the premises.
There's virtually no chance the Lottery is going to be repealed. It's just politics, to win a few votes.
Sgrizzle - do you really think banning ATMs from casinos would do any good? The QT next door would simply see its ATM traffic go through the roof. To me that sounds like a great government bandaid solution that would do nothing at all.
Like, for instance, making me walk next door to buy soda for my scotch.
Or making me stock up on wine on Saturday for Sunday dinner.
Or decreasing the BAC to .08 when most DUIs are over .15
Or allowing slot machines and banning dice.
Or any number of other government 'solutions' that no nothing but frustrate business and citizens.
Grizz, new avatar- is that "Moh cowbell!"?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Or decreasing the BAC to .08 when most DUIs are over .15
I seldom disagree with your points. However, gaming really doesn't put other's at risk as does drunk driving.
Lowering the BAC was to increase the stakes and lower the overall numbers of drunk drivers on the road. It's worked.
The numbers prove that with even more drivers on the road than 25 years ago, that drunk driving fatalities are down with tougher drunk driving laws and better awareness.
I think the argument of whether or not gaming is detrimental to society is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, you could argue that at least for some, access to gaming can lead to the rise of gambling related issues such as addiction or theft. On the other hand, you can't really say for sure whether or not those that are adversely effected by gaming, would get themselves into something else that is relatively negative, had gaming not existed.
I still believe that those specific items that were passed during the lottery vote, were largely a net negative to the Tulsa economy. But gaming is here, it's going to be here, and I'm going to play. Casinos anyway, on occassion. I still haven't bought a lottery ticket, I have a thing for smoke, bells, and flashing lights.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Sgrizzle - do you really think banning ATMs from casinos would do any good? The QT next door would simply see its ATM traffic go through the roof. To me that sounds like a great government bandaid solution that would do nothing at all.
Like, for instance, making me walk next door to buy soda for my scotch.
Or making me stock up on wine on Saturday for Sunday dinner.
Or decreasing the BAC to .08 when most DUIs are over .15
Or allowing slot machines and banning dice.
Or any number of other government 'solutions' that no nothing but frustrate business and citizens.
Probably not but listening to casinos saying they "discourage" people from out of control betting yet doing cash advances on credit cards all the while seems ludicrous.
Yup, according to Gore, the earth has a fever, and the only cure, is more cowbell.
Lets don't be hastily to repeal the lottery. We are still scratching for all that money that racing, machines at the tracks, liquor by the drink, tax on liquor and all the pots of gold that we were assured was at the end of the rainbows. I am sure there is some more money lying around we can be promised we can have access to. .
Don't forget we have an arena that will bring in millions and developments on stink river.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Lets don't be hastily to repeal the lottery. We are still scratching for all that money that racing, machines at the tracks, liquor by the drink, tax on liquor and all the pots of gold that we were assured was at the end of the rainbows. I am sure there is some more money lying around we can be promised we can have access to. .
Don't forget we have an arena that will bring in millions and developments on stink river.
Let's start taxing pre-marital or extra-marital sex, that's the only sin-tax they haven't thought of yet. Well wait, I'm sure some greedy politician has thought of it, it's just never been implimented. [;)]
That's because if there were a tax on extra-marital sex, Republican politicians like Giuliani and Gingrich would be in the poorhouse.
Conan, lowering the BAC simply changed the presumption of guilt. It means if you are over .08 you are automatically presumed intoxicated and arrested. You could always get a DUI at .08 as you can currently get a DUI below .08.
The issues has never been an officer's inability to arrest someone because they didnt hit the magic .1 BAC. The issue is too many people WAY over .1 on the road. Lowering the BAC to .08 has not helped address that at all. Higher fines, community service, jail time, loss of a CDL has and a change in public attitude toward drunk driving has.
However, I understand and appreciate your distinction. But lowering the BAC changed nothing but the understanding the politicians were being 'tough on drunk driving' by the federal government blackmailing states to comply to the .08 standard. Huge tangent looming. I better stop.
I agree with you, cannon_fodder. The number of drunken-driving accidents was already going down sharply before lawmakers jumped on the .08 bandwagon.
One police chief I knew opposed the lowering of the law from .10 to .08 because the average drunk driver blew a .17. The DUIs were already so far above the threshold, lowering it was meaningless.
He also said that lowering the threshold doesn't address the problem of chronic drunken drivers, which are the big problem.
I have spent a fair amount of time on this subject, but we may still be talking past each other on this one.
The reason .08 came about was initially a "scientific" model from NHTSA stats. The break-point in higher incidence of fatalities was the .08 threshold. Quite a bit less from .00 to .07 g/dl. It's not as arbitrary as you think. With lower fatality rates and more cars on the road than there were 17 years ago, it's obviously working to some degree along with other awareness programs.
At the same time as we have .08 as the limit for DUI, there is also now aggravated DUI which is .15 that gives much stiffer penalties in an effort to get the attention of people with BAC's over .15.
It's designed as a deterrent. I agree that it doesn't make everyone think twice before driving drunk, but it has made an impact since .08 legislation started spreading in the early '90's. The majority of people who drink to a .15 or higher on a regular basis aren't prone to the best judgement in the first place.
Granted there have been fatality crashes labeled as caused by alcohol which might have been due more to slick roads, driver innattention (which IS exascerbated by alcohol consumption), or even where it was entirely a sober person's fault in another car- it's just listed as a crash involving alcohol.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
From KTUL (//%22http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0307/408695.html%22)
quote:
Oklahoma City (AP) - The head of Oklahoma's Republican Party, citing lower-than-expected revenue and escalating social costs, is calling for repeal of the Oklahoma Lottery.
Only 18 months after the first lottery ticket was sold in the state, state Republican Party chairman Tom Daxon says the lottery -- approved with 64 percent of the vote in a statewide referendum in November 2004 -- has not worked out as the voters were led to believe.
Democratic Governor Brad Henry supported a statewide lottery as a way to raise additional revenue for public schools and state colleges and universities.
A spokesman for Henry, Paul Sund, says if Daxon wants the lottery repealed, quote, "he should have at it."
The G-O-P chairman says lottery revenue has consistently been below expectations and that shortfalls have forced lawmakers to dip into other revenue sources to fund education.
Daxon also says an increase in gaming in the state has led to a variety of social problems.
My only beef with the lottery is the powerball,I do not think Oklahoma should have went with a multi-state lottery.Because when the jack pot goes up real high,people in the multi-state lottery system can just buy lottery tickets in their state.If we had just our own lottery system, people from other state would come here to play any time our lottery jack pot was significantly high.
quote:
Originally posted by jamesrage
My only beef with the lottery is the powerball,I do not think Oklahoma should have went with a multi-state lottery.Because when the jack pot goes up real high,people in the multi-state lottery system can just buy lottery tickets in their state.If we had just our own lottery system, people from other state would come here to play any time our lottery jack pot was significantly high.
We have a state lottery, no-one buys them.
I like JR's idea of having a megalotto exclusive to OK, but repealing the lottery is a bad idea IMO. Sounds like there needs to be a change in the management there and more realistic goals set for the lottery as a revenue source.
When I win the powerball, I don't know any of ya'll.
quote:
Originally posted by jamesrage
My only beef with the lottery is the powerball,I do not think Oklahoma should have went with a multi-state lottery.Because when the jack pot goes up real high,people in the multi-state lottery system can just buy lottery tickets in their state.If we had just our own lottery system, people from other state would come here to play any time our lottery jack pot was significantly high.
The reason we tapped into Powerball is because Oklahomans were driving to neighboring states to play it. It takes too long to generate any sort of jackpot in one state which will be an incentive for people to play it, rather than to drive to Caney, Kansas and have a 1 billion to one shot (or whatever it is) to win $300 million.
I don't pay that close attention to what the jackpot is. If I happen to notice the billboard on Hwy 75 and it's over $100mm, I might buy a couple of tickets, if I remember the next time I go into QT.
I generally have more of a tendency to give $1 to the heart foundation, Jerry's kids or whatever at a point of sale than buy a lottery ticket.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
We have a state lottery, no-one buys them.
Thats because we have the powerball.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
The reason we tapped into Powerball is because Oklahomans were driving to neighboring states to play it.
That is because at the time Oklahoma did not have a lottery and the closest thing we had to the scratchers was the two minute phone cards with a "scratch and win" you could buy at various gas stations.
quote:
It takes too long to generate any sort of jackpot in one state which will be an incentive for people to play it, rather than to drive to Caney, Kansas and have a 1 billion to one shot (or whatever it is) to win $300 million.
I am sure alot more Oklahomans are playing the lottery now then before it became legal.
quote:
I don't pay that close attention to what the jackpot is. If I happen to notice the billboard on Hwy 75 and it's over $100mm, I might buy a couple of tickets, if I remember the next time I go into QT.
If we only had a megalotto exclusive to Oklahoma,people would be flocking to Oklahoma border towns from other states to purchase lotto tickets any time the lottery jack pot has high.I might take several months or more for such a jack pot to accumulate,and it might accumulate really big considering the odds of winning and entice alot of out of state people to play.
I could take years to get an Oklahoma lotto jackpot to $300mm. It would take a pay-in of about $450mm to create a payout of $300mm, assuming a 65% payback. I don't know the percentage of Oklahomans who are regular (weekly) lotto players, just guessing, but I'd bet around 25%.
People who live closer to border states are still going to want to play Powerball, and they would take their lottery money across state lines again. Unless, of course, some toad state legislator wants to step on our liberty and criminalize out of state gambling or put some sort of tax on out of state gambling expenditures.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I could take years to get an Oklahoma lotto jackpot to $300mm. It would take a pay-in of about $450mm to create a payout of $300mm, assuming a 65% payback. I don't know the percentage of Oklahomans who are regular (weekly) lotto players, just guessing, but I'd bet around 25%.
People who live closer to border states are still going to want to play Powerball, and they would take their lottery money across state lines again. Unless, of course, some toad state legislator wants to step on our liberty and criminalize out of state gambling or put some sort of tax on out of state gambling expenditures.
I agree. With our 3.5 million population it would take too long to build a giant jackpot for an Oklahoma megalotto.
Instead of Oklahomans crossing the borders to buy lottery tickets in other states, it's now the other way around. Quite a few Arkansas residents buy Powerball tickets along our eastern border, and even a few Texans buy Powerball here. Texas has the Mega Millions multi-state lotto, but not the Powerball.