Question of liberality - Re: Lotteries, etc

[ChoralScholar]

Here in Arkansas, we are always fighting the battle of bringing in/not bringing in lotteries. All the surrounding states have them, and Arkansans flock across the line, sending our precious little money into other states' coffers.

Many moderates and conservatives argue that if we bring in a lottery, people who have very little income will spend it on lottery tickets, putting more people in bad financial situations. I find this argument, although misguided, not completely without merit.

We, as liberals, obviously advocate for personal freedom to buy whatever with your own money, but how do we resolve the fact that some of these people will inevitably destitute themselves, hoping to win the lottery, thereby placing a strain on governmental programs intended help people who really need it?

How do we balance personal freedom vs. financial responsibility in this issue?

I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm just looking for your thoughts, to help sort out my own.

[beyurslf]

1. People can spend their money how they want to. People with limited

income also shouldn't waste lots of money of fast food, soda, liquor, or many other items. Should we ban those too?

For that matter, why would it make a difference how much money they have if we don't think they should "waste" it? Just ban all wasteful spending.

[ChoralScholar]

2. good point. EOM

[wuushew]

3. A poor substitute for progressive taxation

n/t

[waiting for hope]

4. Fight to keep it out!

Moved from Louisiana to North Carolina three years ago and found a refreshing change with NC not having a lottery.....that ended this year when the legislature (by a very narrow margin) passed it through. When I was in Louisiana they very quietly passed the state lottery and then made big promises that it would be used to help public schools and roads.....since 1990 not one red cent has been pumped into either system - in 2004 they passed legislature to "earmark" funds for public education but whenever you have such a large sum of cash going into a general fund, thousands of special interest groups come out of the woodwork and it all becomes political. I was even more saddened by the GA billboards up around I-10 going into and out of New Orleans. I think your statement "not completely without merit" to be true.....I have a loved one that played to stupid tax and was hiding it - almost ruined us. Like drugs, alcohol and tobacco, it can be a serious addiction.

[Horse with no Name]

6. That was the promise made in Texas also

which also did not materialize.
However, it brought more scandal into Texas.:eyes:

[waiting for hope]

11. Remember Edwin Edwards?

Off Shore gambling has him in prison for the next couple of years.....Gotta love the Louisiana Good Ole Boy Politics....

[ChoralScholar]

13. Well, that's got to be absolutely untrue,

because with Harriet Miers, the cleaning lady, in charge of the state Lottery, it must be on the up and up. :)

[SofaKingLiberal]

5. How would they place a strain on government programs?

They qualify for such programs based on their income, not how much of their income they spend on stupid things like lottery tickets.

[madeline_con]

8. Good point...

and who's to say some of Arkansas' poor aren't crossing state lines already to buy lotto tickets in surrounding states?

[ChoralScholar]

9. I thought about that. Also a good point.

Also I was thinking about private helper programs that are not income based, such as food missions, bill assistance organizations, etc.

[Jamison]

7. I see nothing wrong with lotteries personally.

In my state, percentage of the proceeds of the lottery goes to education.

As far as poorer people spending too much discretionary income on Lotto tickets, that boils down to personal restraint. It's OK to maybe spend a buck or two a month on Lotto tickets, but people I see who buy $50 & $100 worth at a time might have problems. Someone has to win, and winning would be sweet, but the odds are astronomical of winning it seems.

Personally I think I'd have a better chance of scoring a threesome with Jessica Simpson and Jessica Alba than winning the Lotto jackpot.

[ChoralScholar]

10. That might actually be cooler than winning the jackpot :)

[ChoralScholar]

12. I actually had your state in mind...

I live in Harrison, AR, and drove up to Branson for dinner. I stopped at a service station just over the line to buy gas and saw the lottery sign blinking.

It just got me to thinking, that's all. I appreciate the help.

[Jamison]

14. Nice area you live in.

I like it down there, it's hilly & picturesque. There's a place down there I like to eat at when I visit the area, Lambert's Cafe north of Branson, it's awesome. The only bad thing about the area are the high numbers of freepers and the fact that it's Wal-Mart country.

[ChoralScholar]

15. I moved here in July to take a teaching job.

It's not quite as conservative as I thought it would be. It's pretty bad, but not as bad as I thought.

[firefox]

16. Lotteries are not a legitimate function of government

I think freedom says that lotteries should be legal. What I object to is the state making a monopoly of it. Call me a conservative, but running lotteries is not a function of government.

[last_texas_dem]

17. This is a tough issue

I don't like lotteries and wish that my state didn't have one. At the same time, I am basically a "live and let live" person when it comes to how others choose to spend their money, as long as it's within the limits of the law, of course.

I don't believe lotteries have had a positive effect in Texas; in part, because of the corruption in running them, and the fact that promises of how the funds that they raised were supposedly to be spent were broken. I don't like that their implementation is essentially the state encouraging gambling (as I said earlier, I don't really care what people do with their money, but I consider it a slightly different circumstance with the state's involvement), and agree with the above poster who classified lotteries as simply a weak substitute for progressive taxation. In Texas, we have one of the highest sales taxes (which disproportionately hits the poor and low-income) in the country, but despite needing another way to raise funds our legislature would sooner drop dead than implement a progressive income tax. Lotteries are, to me, simply another way for the state to fund government by taking more money from the poor (although I do admit there's a significant difference in that buying a lottery ticket is a choice, while a sales tax is not) instead of the well-off.

In sum, while I do not support the idea of a lottery myself for various reasons, I do not have a major problem with states choosing to implement them for whatever reason. If people choose to take part in one and a state chooses to raise funds through one, so be it. At the same time, I just don't think it's good policy, personally, and if instituting a lottery were put up to the voters in my state I believe I would vote against it. Though I know my logic has a few holes in it, I figure if it's the right of others to choose to take part in a lottery it's my choice to not support instituting something I'm against.

[hfojvt]

18. I am against them

but I am probably not a poster boy for liberalism. To me they are just a con game that rips people off. Lefties are supposed to put people before $$$, and so should not favor them. Like e coli in meat, they are harmful to society and thus should not be allowed.

[ChoralScholar]

19. I just don't know

If they do what people said they would do (bring money into education) I'd be all for it.

But that song and dance has been played out in most every state. The money inevitably goes somewhere else.

I know for a fact, even though Missouri's schools have lottery money in them, they're not any better off, financially, than our schools. Salaries, money per student, facilities, etc are just the same or worse in many cases.

[hfojvt]

22. how about this scenario?

the state sells meth and uses that revenue to fund the schools.

Or how about legalizing prostitution and using the tax revenues from that for schools?

Aren't those just as logical?

Even if the money goes somewhere else, isn't that relieving pressure to raise property taxes?

[Fleshdancer]

20. Can you have it both ways?

I personally agree with the idea that gambling is a tax on people who are bad at math, but that doesn't mean a state can't allow gambling while educating the public of the odds at the same time.

At the end of the day, American's work hard for their money and they can spend it any way they want. If a family is experiencing a gambling problem though, then perhaps the the state could offer programs to help?

To be fair, maybe these proposed programs can also help families who are in deep credit card debt which, these days, are just as much of a gamble than casinos given the sudden interest rate hikes.

[ChoralScholar]

21. Yeah...You're right.

what you said re:education brought something to mind:

>>doesn't mean a state can't allow gambling while educating the public of the odds at the same time.

Kind of reminds me of how cigarette companies run ads telling you how bad they are for you, but they still MANUFACTURE THEM!!!

Seems kinda silly to me. (Not gambling education, the other thing)

[Cleita]

23. As low income neighbor of mine once said about only the poor

buying lottery tickets, of course only the poor will buys them. The rich don't need to win a lottery, but the poor guy always has a chance of winning. The dollar or so a week spent on a ticket would only be spent on another small luxury, like a beer anyway.